Thinking Anglicans: An unnamed Primate Writes to Dr. Poon

I’m glad to see a Primate has put Dr. Poon in his place.

.... you used the Global South website for a personal matter.

Yeah - I sorta felt that way too. There were better ways to address any questions or issues.

That about sums it up.

I have a blog thingy

Well, let the guessing begin.
This missive sounds somewhat Nigerian.

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

link broken

sorry, link fixed

I’ll be interested to see the Catechism theological bckground document to which Dr. Poon refers. He says the GS Primates generally approved an earlier version. A comparison of the document with the 1979 Episcopal version and the one in the New Zealand Prayer Book will be interesting.  But the problem is not the inadequacy of the official statements but the inadequacy of the teaching and preaching of some of the leaders. No Catechism can have the clarity of Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which the Episcopal Church has chosen to disregard.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

Would that Dr. Poon might direct his rather public <strike>criticism</strike> <strike>scorn</strike> curiosity to the non-conciliar behavior of the ABC and the ACO, rather than to those forced into reaction because of such behavior.

Well, Dr. Poon just seems to keep it up.  He infers that at least the “draft” was prepared by a “new American Bishop”,,  can you even guess who that might be?  And, if he allows that, doesn’t that give away the “Primate” who directed it to him? 

These folks truly have a problem since we’ve learned to “read between the lines”.  We’ve still got to improve our skills tho, no matter how disconcerting it is to find antagonism buried in high falutin words.

Grannie Gloria

Perhaps the Word document identifiers were not reset when a kind American donated a computer to the said Primate. My work computer had me identified as a retired co-worker for 3 years before someone caught it and asked me to change the settings. It’s like photo-radar, you may own the car, but who drove it through the speed trap?

This seems to be yet another attempt to portray a roistering adventurer as being the power behind the primatial throne by implying that the Primate is not smart enough to think up this kind of criticism by himself.

My aren’t we getting testy?

The actions of Dr. Poon are, shall we say, rather Jefferts-Schorian.

I take a somewhat different tack from the comments above.  I think in this sad spectacle, that blame rests on a number of sides.

What I would have appreciated in Dr. Poon is that if he had facts that he would share them without asking bizarre and confusing questions which some thought he had no clue about and others thought he did know about but wouldn’t say.  My understanding is that Dr. Poon has, for instance, supported Archbishop Akinola and numerous other players in the Global South.  I don’t think that we can fairly discount him for being “not orthodox” or somehow suspect as an “institutionalist.”

And . . . it appears that there were real conversations and that there is real disagreement that has now become public.

From the beginning I have been FOR “private” and “carefully obscured” yet serious disagreements being public eventually.  If minor, then I understand.  But it’s been four years.  Four long years.  And if certain disagreements have not yet been hashed out in private then yes, they need to be public, so that the entire bank of orthodox Anglicans which this effects can be aware.

I’m grateful, for instance, that at last the serious disagreements in the Network about “inside” and “outside” strategies were made public, and quite frankly, I sure could have used more honesty and clarity about this earlier—would have helped a lot.

Sorry, but after my time in ECUSA I am sick to death of my revisionist “betters” hiding, and lying, and sneaking, and covering up, and papering over, and pretending that we all “agree” or have some sort of “unity” when we clearly do not have unity.  In the same way with the large group of orthodox Anglicans that are now working through strategy and how to proceed and have now divided over strategies and tactics.  Once attempts to settle disagreements fail on a private level, and those disagreements continue to be played out, then yes, I’m for all of knowing about them, so that we ourselves can make decisions.

Sorry, but I don’t trust the “pure motives” of any player in this sorry debacle.  And I’m very very thankful to know about what limited matters I can pick up, even if its a scrap from a now cut dialogue over at Global South Anglican.

And . . . I’m disappointed to see that either 1) someone in America is writing documents wholecloth for other Primates [whether “reviewed” or not, I don’t care] or 2) somebody hasn’t learned to do what Greg Griffith wrote an entire article about not six months ago explaining about regarding MS Word documents.  The incompetence, and arrogance, is truly breathtaking.

I’m disgusted.

How is it that I, a mere layman, have managed to have communications with 3 primates and several bishops over the last year without publishing a single open letter?  It seems that the seminaries need to teach a course in private mail (or email).  An open letter or article is always intended for an audience other than the one it is addressed to.  I do not know Dr. Poon, and I do not know his motivation in publishing his article in the first place, but if he had questions, would it not have been more appropriate to call or email one of the primates, or others among the organizers. (and I must assume that if I can do this, so can he.  He is sufficiently familiar with internet protocol to publish an article, I am sure he can surf the web to the Church of Nigeria site and press the contact button.)  If you want to comment on the event in the form of an open opinion- fine, write an op-ed piece and publish it.  But if you are questioning an individual’s motivation- or want to request an invitation- it strikes me as only polite to address a private communication to that individual.  Maybe Lambeth could pass a resolution banning the “open letter.”  While Dr. Poon’s open letters on the GS masquerade as articles, these are hardly respectful discussions of the matters that caused the Primates and others to call the GAFCON conference.

I share your disgust Sarah, although I think Dr. Poon did far more than simply ask questions in the wrong way. He misrepresented the Gafcon statement and the principles involved by suggesting that they made claims that they did not make.

As for the various letters that are emerging, I am with you.

If ++Anis has asked that the event not be held in Jer, I cannot imagine a legitimate reason to override his objections. I have no problem intervening in heretic provinces against the wishes of a heretic bishop or primate, it is far beyond the pale to do so to an orthodox primate. So, if the various reports are true, I am very disturbed.

Survey says:

This guy is a serious whiner.

Aside from the fact that I could so care less who did the final editing on the piece.  My entire family uses my computer - so does that mean they do all my writing for me?

For Pete’s sake - we’ve already covered this issue.  Sarah, perhaps they didn’t play hide-seek with the Word Document because they don’t care who knows - unlike the cloak/dagger TEC.

Whoa, everyone.  Let’s try to remember that this is supposed to be a “no-whining, no-freakout zone.”  If I may be so bold, it seems that there is some excessive criticism and suspicion going on here, in both directions.

Sarah, I wouldn’t go so far as to say “I’m disugsted.”  But I would admit to being disappointed.  Perhaps as one scholar wanna be, I can try to explain (which is NOT the same as excusing) how another scholarly Anglican has acted.  That is, I think Dr. Poon has acted here in very much the same way that the eminent leaders of the ACI would, urging caution and careful and open debate before decisive actions are taken that could have immense ramifications.

I’m sympathetic to that myself, even though I also have been calling for decisive actions to be taken for some time.  What I suspect has happened in this case, is that the pressure to give public notice of the upcoming GAF Conference (in order for people to get it on their calendars and to send a strong signal to the powers that be in the AC) has forced, or seemingly forced, the GAFCON planners to act rather precipitously, before all the details were worked out.  It’s perfectly understandable, thought still regrettable.  But perhaps it really was necessary; we don’t know the whole picture.  Right now, it’s all a matter of speculation.

But despite the confusion engendered by this stunning announcement (you know, things like: Who’s on board with this?  ++Gomez?, ++Anis? Will Cantaur be invited? etc.), I for one rejoice that we are seeing such clear evidence that bold actions are underway, even if their full import is still unclear.  There has been enough talk, talk, and more talk, with too little concrete actions.

Whatever mistakes the organizers of GAFCON may have made in how this exciting event has been “leaked” or announced, perhaps prematurely, the primary fact remains that these much-respected leaders are taking action, indeed some very bold, decisive actions.  And I for one rejoice in that.  It’s about time…

The bottom line comes down to trust, doesn’t it?  Do you trust the organizers of this unprecedented event?  Do you trust the GS primates already behind it?  Do you trust +Bob Duncan “the Lion-Hearted?”  Do you trust Canon Sugden? etc.

And for me, that is a no-brainer.  Of course, I trust them.  That does NOT mean giving them carte blanche to do anything they please, nor does it amount to automatically approving everything about this conference.  But yes, these guys have won my trust.  Big time.  Unreservedly.  (And it’s the same goes for the main CCP leaders, but that’s another matter).

After all, what real alternative is there?

David Handy+
A not uncritical, but still enthusiastic, supporter of the idea of GAFCON (and the CCP)

Amen, David - Anglican Cats of the Internet approve such sentiments.

Eclipse - another enthusiastic supporter of anyone interested in Jesus more than their own agendas (which excludes TEC).

Hmmm…what an odd thing? Where did you get the idea Sarah was “freaking out”

That at this stage of the game the principles are making or rather, repeating simple but embarrassing mistakes is somewhat disconcerting

And nothing really excuses Dr. Poon on this score. He simply mischaracterized and misrepresented the facts. There is no “scholarly” excuse or even reason for that.

A polite public apology, broader inclusion of orthodox leaders & possible (repeat possible) change of venue might go a long way here. 

To not pre-release this plan to orthodox leaders is unwise.  To not have the prior approval of the host primate & host bishop is more than unwise.

1.  A very significant part of this episode is that Poon’s comment was deleted from the Global South Anglican website.  Someone is clearly unhappy with it.  It was most likely deleted by Terry Wong, Asst. Secretary of the GS Steering Committee and administrator of the GSA site, but members of the Steering Committee itself could have been involved or perhaps Poon himself had second thoughts.
2.  After the Poon comment was deleted, Graham Kings, never one to leave a boomerang lying on the ground unthrown, posted the link to Thinking Anglicans’ quotation of the now deleted comment back onto the very GSA thread from which it had been removed.
3.  Many people may assume the primate was +Akinola and the amanuensis was +Minns.  That seems highly unlikely to me since Poon calls him “a senior member of the Global South leadership team,” but elsewhere notes the he, Poon, is in weekly contact with the “GSA Primates chair” (Akinola) and asks the primate in question “have you seen” a draft theological document that Poon says he has discussed extensively with Akinola and that was seen by all the primates who went to China.  Among those who went to China were Bps. Akinola, Orombi and Kolini.
4.  If Poon communicates with +Akinola on a weekly basis, he could easily have had his “questions” answered by an authoritative source if they were genuine questions.
5.  Notwithstanding the carpet blogging of the Poon pieces over the weekend by the ACI/Fulcrum crowd, I expect this sad episode will prove to be a total debacle for them not least because they jumped on it to sow division in the name of unity.

Miserable Sinner,

To assume that a broad coalition of orthodox leaders, including names being tossed about here, were not consulted before this was announced is also, shall we say, unwise.

Having just read Dr. Poon’s questions, I am not sure I understand how he has “mischaracterized and misrepresented the facts” by merely asking for clarifications and by holding accountable rogue Anglican leadership? Is it not possible his perceptions, may in fact, be correct even if his understanding may be off because of the lack of definition and collegiality related to the actions taken by some of these primates…Certainly, I can’t understand what is wrong with Dr. Poon making this a public debate, especially given that the unilateral decisions being made by these Primates affect more than just themselves?

Also, I am not sure, either, who is being accused of having written what for whom? Is Ms Hey suggesting disgust for the so called “orthodox primates” as well? I am shocked, if so… I have been away from this site for a while and feel as though I have fallen behind in watching a soap opera. The story line has changed, the characters are changing, and I am a little more confused than usual…

Poon’s done.  Stick a fork in him.

Wow, Dr. Poon does cause high amounts of drama ... Yawn.

I guess I might be all upset and gain David Handy+ “wrath” (tongue-in-cheek usage) for ‘freaking out’ for the obvious favorism shown by Dr. Poon for leaving ++Emmanuel Kolini Primate of PEER out of his diatribe, but honestly I’m uninterested. Just one more piece of his obvious sloppiness which seems to be getting worse. His whole comment with the confidential letter by an esteemed Primate then hinting very loudly from whom by the allusion to the <u>Church Times</u> article earlier this year is more childish school yard games than “scholarly” argument.

I can be an expert at disqualifying my arguments by allowing passion overtake logic and misuse of forums, but it does not make either Dr. Poon or myself correct, we’re still both in error. I stayed out of the thread of his actual questions—As an academic exercise I do not see much in error with Dr. Poon asking such things. It may drawn the ire of an esteemed Primate, who seems to have desired an internal off-record debate, which Biblical protocol would command to be tried before posting the original post. However this post in the now-deleted comment really shows poor form. It really discredits the whole article for it shows he seems to have an ax to grid rather than legitimate questions of accountability and pleas to ecclesiastical protocols to do the very things yourself.

Very poor form. Then, his continued sloppiness demonstrates that all of this is nothing to worry about & will probably end up as a footnote when some historian is trying to prove he does better research than his peers or something.

I’m going back to pondering New Years resolutions that I won’t keep past February ...

FrVan, all of the players in this sorry debacle are orthodox/reasserting.  And yes—I’m disgusted with the behavior of the lot.  Be happy over that—it means that I’m not even thinking about revisionists or “moderates” or “institutionalists” in this matter.  This is your lucky day!  ; > )

And no, disgust and disdain for ridiculous, incompetent, and manipulative behavior [on numerous fronts] in this debacle is not “freaking out”—I cannot muster the energy or interest to do that.

Further it appears that quite a number of other leaders are interested “their own agendas”, other than the merely and proudly heretical TEC.

I think a good sense of humour and a strong awareness of the fallibility of human beings will help on these kinds of occasions. Best way forward is to think how to encourage repentance where necessary, forgiveness and reconciliation. 

You have to keep a good sense of irony and of the fallibility of human nature

I think a good sense of humour and a strong awareness of the fallibility of human beings will help on these kinds of occasions. Best way forward is to think how to encourage repentance where necessary, forgiveness and reconciliation.

For whatever it is worth, I have a pretty good sense of who Dr. Michael Poon is; what he has done in the past; what he is doing at present; and how he works. And, just for the record, I have IMMENSE respect for him.

I also fully understand how and why some people, such as Father Kennedy, might wish that Dr. Poon had not aired his questions in public; or had assumed a different tone entirely, while raising these issues.

I can also understand why an important Primate (and I think we are all pretty sure that we know who he is) might be more than a bit annoyed that all of this has come out—and that it has come out in the way it has.

Whether or not the actual letter was composed by somebody in North America or not is irrelevant. The letter from an unnamed Primate to Dr. Poon rather fully expresses the anger and indignation of one of the key personalities behind GAFCON.

Based upon everything that I know about Dr. Michael Poon—and I have NOT recently talked to him about any of this—I am going to reiterate what I have said already: I am absolutely SURE that Dr. Poon ALREADY has the answers to some of his questions. That is precisely WHY this thing is so serious. And it is why I share some of Dr. Poon’s concerns.

Dr. Michael Poon is NOT a light-weight. Neither is he an insignificant or irrelevant figure in this struggle for orthodoxy within the Anglican fold. Frankly, I am a bit shocked and surprised to discover that so many people on this site apparently do not know much about who he is, what he has done, or his stature in the overall scheme of things. No, he does NOT wear purple. But he’s a VERY BIG PLAYER nonetheless.

In case nobody noticed, Dr. Poon, in his response to this Primate’s email—with specific reference to the Primate’s indignation that he voiced his uneasiness on a web blog—has fairly clearly stated that he is in touch with ALL OF THESE PEOPLE (the ones organizing GAFCON) on a VERY REGULAR basis. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Dr. Poon is not satisfied with what he has learned over the course of these regular communication.

Personally, I was hoping for a much better response from the GAFCON people. But I am going to cut them some slack. We are ALL impatient. We are ALL frustrated. We have all given vent to patently sinful outbursts of anger and self-righteousness. Wearing purple does not NOT diminish in any way one’s fallen, finite, and human nature.

I have said all along that these issues could have, and should have, been addressed by the GAFCON conveners in private via telephone.

As far as I can see, the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON that Dr. Poon has seen fit to make this letter from a Primate public, is because that Primate was NOT ABLE to satisfy Dr. Poon’s concerns. Some of you will disagree, I know—but I still think that Dr. Poons overall uneasiness about GAFCON is a very legitimate thing.

Let me say it again: I am basically VERY ENTHUSIASTIC about GAFCON. But I do not delude myself into believing that it does not raise serious issues that need to be VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED by EVERYBODY on the orthodox side. I am, in fact, seriously struggling to understand Father Kennedy’s take on all of this, so that I might, personally, exercise some discernment in the matter.  I think that those who’s opinion is, more or less, in line with Father Kennedy’s opinion would do well to seriously struggle to understand Dr. Poon’s take on all of this.

The BEST THING that I have read on Stand Firm in the past several weeks was a comment from somebody who lives in Las Vegas. He said: when the stakes are high, it is always best to play conservatively.

The stakes are very, very, very high. We ALL (both Primates and simple lay people) have an obligation to play very conservatively at this point. Several times I have heard people voice the idea that time is not on our side. That is our American impatience expressing itself. In fact, not only is TIME on our side, but we have ETERNITY on our side, as well.

Any discussion of metadata is ridiculous. For about as much money as I pay my gardener each month (okay, okay—I have a pretty big yard), I could have a kid monitor EVERY ROUTER in Pittsburgh. To monitor every router in, say, Nigeria, would be even easier.

Anybody who thinks that 815 has NOT been monitoring every router in Pittsburgh since 2003—if not long before then—is naive and/or stupid.

TEC is playing hardball, with no reference to any sense of fair play or rules. To give you an example of how transparent the modern world can be at times, let me point out that with a few keystrokes on my computer, I could have all the email going into or out of 815 downloaded onto my PC. Of course, I am a Christian—and this compromises my ability to wrestle with our enemies in a no-holds-barred manner. But our gnostic enemies have no such constraints, nor do they feel the need to allow any scruples to interfere with their purposes.

Cell phones are NOT immune to eavesdropping. But it is a LOT easier to maintain security and privacy with a cell phone (properly handled) than it is with a computer. That is, unless we are going to start resorting to insane levels of encryption and dazzlingly complex codes.

Dear Ms Hey:
  I have great respect for your writing and insight, and the expression of your faith and search for truth. I am sorry about your disenchantment, but I understand some of it—-and share it. On all fronts and sides we must pray for Anglican leadership, that their feet of clay become forged in steel…I sometimes wish the Church were more representative of the Faith and less of The Fall. God bless you…

Sometimes orthodox Anglican blog threads can be sooo useful, and at other times they seem to quickly slip into speculations about the import of speculating about the import of speculating about the possibly impolitic communication about the potentially unwise…..

However, even in a thread such as this, we do learn something useful - that Hosea6:6 is sufficiently presumptuous to imply that more than one New Years resolution might be kept at least until sometime in the month of February. Inquiring minds need to know what is behind this apparently intentional ambiguity.

Hmmm ... I think it may be time to review this again.

bb

I guess we see from recent events that the orthodox can be just as big bullies as anyone the other side has to put up.

/See how these Christians love one another!

Well all of this has certainly been enlightening, if not terribly helpful to for those of us trying to discern whether to use an inside or an outside strategy at the local level.  I suspect that all of this simply highlights what can go wrong when we as orthodox Christians divide over the issue of which is the best strategy to use…this thread has already given me nightmares…

Most of the heat generated here is due to the effort of trying to make sense of insufficient information.

Ruidh—good to see that you’ve come round to seeing that all people are sinners and sinful.

That is why it so important to believe the gospel, which progressive dear leaders in ECUSA do not.

I’ll take the sinners who believe the gospel any day over the sinners who do not. But you’re still welcome to post here.

At Oxford in the early 1980s there was an extraordinary young from Hong Kong named Michael Poon.  I remember thinking what a significant contribution he would someday make to the reconstitution of the Christian Church in China.  It seems ironic that he is now called to help Christians in the West deepen their theological understanding.  Someone said earlier this year: ‘Dr Poon’s 1984 Oxford D Phil thesis on John Chrysostom began with: “Christian ethics are ecclesial” - which could have served as the introduction to the Windsor report.’
God bless him!

Never believe everything published on a blog site and what you do believe, take with a grain of salt and a sense of humor.  I take great delight in the cereberations of Michael Poon and Ephraim Radner.  They make me think and make me chuckle, they pleasure my brain.  I am thankful that God has allowed me to stay alive long enough to share the thinking space with them.  And I am also thankful that niether of them gets the last word; God does.

I would hope that no one is monitering routers without lawful legal authority! 

I don’t mind Primates using others to write drafts; that is a necessary tool for everyone at the top of a large organization. It is not deceptive. However, not stripping metadata, after all of the prior rucus, is incompetent.

In the end, this seems to be a struggle between those that wish to attend Lambeth, and those that don’t.

Going Home,  In case nobody has told you, thousands of people are monitoring routers all the time. I am not sure that doing so is quite the same thing as “tapping a telephone line,” but, even if it were, there is simply not enough police power to enforce such a legal constraint. Nor is there any clear way to monitor the monitors, as it were. I work in a business where this sort of thing is just taken for granted. People are always spying on others, and there is virtually nothing that anybody can do about it. Monitoring a router is EASY. Diverting email is a bit more difficult, but anybody who has sat through “Hacking 101,” as it were, can do it fairly easily. And not leave any trace of doing so in the process. Wake up, folks!

I am not sure that doing so is quite the same thing as “tapping a telephone line,”

Quick off topic of Internet 101 - It’s perfectly legal to monitor all traffic that passes through my system, the way the Internet works is series of computers requesting and passing on everyones traffic in packet form. So don’t worry about Google’s privacy policy with Gmail, every email message has copies of itself on many machines (fun times {in a geeky sort of way} is to play with a path charting utility to map the hops).

In English—Please never fill out private information unless you see the little padlock (meaning encryption) and never send a SSN directly in one email (use coded system of multiple emails if you must, better via phone).

There are three ways to communicate:  verbally face to face, verbally by phone, and by written word.  Of the three, the written word is completely the worst since a)  It lays the writer open to misinterpretation, It is a permanent record which can be viewed for analysis and/or misinterpretation by anyone who reads it.  Of course the writer may wish his written word to be viewed by everyone. 

Secondly, by phone.  Privacy, discourse, discussion of agreement and/or disagreement.  Lacking here is the benefit of body language, nuanced perspective, etc.

Third: Face to face.  Clearly and by far the best since here the potential is for frank, open and extended discussion with all other benefits that are brought into play.  One definite benefit is that it is private, consensus or disagreement can be resolved in private and thus a more fruitful message can then be disseminated in public.

The second is obviously the next best since face to face is often impractical.

But the written word is a permanent record and can in no way be satisfactorily retracted or hidden.  That is very clearly the case with Dr. Poon’s reaction to the GAFCON announcement.  Yes, obviously it seems that the announcement of the conference showed inadequate foresight in the preparation of an announcement.  Yes, no member of the GS ought to have been excluded, and certainly the two men most immediately involved -the bishop of Jerusalem and ++Anis should have been consulted.  In may ways a real travesty of foresight.

Babyblue:

I agree.

Sarah:

Agree with you as well.  Better to hang out with those who know they have problems than those who believe themselves to be ‘above them’.

It is interesting to me to see on Thinking Anglicans the comparison being made to Militant Tendency. Militant Tendency were a Revolutionary Trotskyist Entryist organization that attempted to take over the Labour Party in Great Britian in the 1980s. They were ultimately defeated because they were openly and decisively opposed by the Labour Party leadership. It was a bitter and electorally disatrous conflict but in the medium term it saved the Labour Party from electoral oblivion. Of course, it took courage from the then leadership and a willingness to seriously fight the Entryists at every level.

I have myself thought of the tactics used by organizations like Integrity n the 1980s and 1990s as thought provokingly close to such Entryism, except that they were ultimately successful in wrestling control of TEC from a lethargic and complacent leadership.

n the 1980s and 1990s as thought provokingly close to such Entryism, except that they were ultimately successful in wrestling control of TEC from a lethargic and complacent leadership.

That is such a provocative point and I am so inclined to agree, driver8. I watched it unfold, masterfully achieved (from a purely political point of view, it was quite an achievement) at the five General Conventions I attended.  And thing was, they would learn from their mistakes.  They were able to hide whatever infighting they might have (or perhaps they just didn’t have any, which sort of boggles the mind) and remain fixed on their targets.  We are not talking about a lot of people - it’s a very small group, but your description of what happened in the Labour Party is fascinating to compare to what basically happened to the Episcopal Church in the 80s and 90s.  When the orthodox finally woke up, they were shocked by the sudden resistance (they had basically taken control of the key points of leadership in TEC by then) and had to blame some underground conspiracy rather than directly face that they had completely forgotten about the international flank and this meeting in Chicago of their newly reminted “consultation” seems to be an attempt to try to rectify that major blunder on their part.  Guess we’ll see.

bb

Tony Benn is still around, I think. And even if he is getting a bit old and feeble, at this stage of the game, a LOT of his cohorts are still trying to reshape “New” (Ha!) Labour into something more to their liking. Similarly, even if we were to somehow drive the revisionists out of 815, we would STILL have to keep our guard up for some time to come… Though, of course, I do NOT think that there is any chance of evicting the revisionists from 815 for decades to come, if ever… All we can do AT THIS POINT is quarantine them—and prevent them from infecting the whole of the Church with their vile doctrines.

Assuming this posting (now removed) is accurate, and leaving aside the personal issues, Dr. Poon’s response to the unnamed Primate provides some more clarity as to his earlier concerns. 

There appears to have been agreement within the Global South Steering group about two main priorites for action: one involving economics, the other theological formation, with the drafting of an Anglican Catechism as this latter’s immediate outcome.  Dr. Poon has been working hard on the Catechism project along with others, and this work now almost complete, at least in its first stage, and ready soon to be shared with the larger Communion.  He is upset because the GAFCON plans were, it seems, put together without coordination and consulation with the GS Steering group;  and not only that, because of this lack of consulation, the bad PR that might/is associated with it in some circles, could marginalize the proposed Catechism.  Reading between the lines further, it would seem as if some of the theological implications in the GAFCON announcement (e.g. concerning the basis of “Anglican orthodoxy”) may well go counter to the proposed Catechism itself. 

All of this is most interesting.  I can certainly attest to the positive role that the GS proposed Covenant has had in the initial draft presented to the Communion (as anybody comparing the two can recognize).  I am sure that the GS proposed Catechism has the potential of having a similarly positive role for Communion-wide discussion and writing.  Let us hope that the current strategies of various groups will not somehow derail the these two projects and their possible usefulness, which represent true gifts of the larger Church to the Communion itself.

Much like the con-artist and village gossip, Dr. Poon seems to be quite accomplished at casting suspicion on even the most innocuous information.
I believe that most thinking Anglicans might recognize this simply as gossip intended to impede the efforts of the Primates and wait for official announcements about GAFCON.

I totally remember a moment that really fits this Entryist idea.  At the General Convention in Indianapolis in 1994, I was sitting in the House of Bishops galleries on the last day of General Convention.  Everyone was tired.  But as the final session began, a group of ordained women (the majority, I would learn later, were affiliated with Integrity) came in and sat on the floor of the House at the table reserved for Ecumenical guest bishops.  They sat stern-faced and silent, saying nothing, just staring down the bishops.  It was bold.  I sat right behind them, eyes wide.

This was my first General Convention and so I was astonished to see what happened next.  A resolution was taken up that would basically force all the dioceses to ordain women, including the dioceses that were traditionally Anglo Catholic.  I can remember some of the Anglo Catholic bishops standing up near tears as this resolution was debated that if this resolution passed, they would have to leave the Church.  It was heart wrenching.  I looked at the group of women at the Ecumenical table (and remember folks, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the ordination of qualified women) and they continued to sit stonefaced, unmoved by the testimony. They just continued to stare down the other bishops. 

It was clear that the votes were there to force all the dioceses to ordain women.  That would mean that some of the bishops would resign and perhaps entire dioceses would break apart.  I was sitting with a friend who had tears running down her face. I kept looking at the women at the table, wondering how they could sit there, in their in their stoney silence and be unmoved by the testimony of the traditionalist bishops.  They were supposed to be priests, for God sake!  I wondered about the other bishops - I can remember one we called “Shorts” and how he was basically operating as a “Whip” (like you see in the House of Representatives) through the room, whipping up votes.  He was the Bishop of New Hampshire, Douglas Theuner.

Then Edmond Browning called for a break and John Howe and Jack Spong went out into the hall.  They conferred out there, as I recall, and then - after a time - came back into the House and the resolution was tabled.  A catastrophe was averted. 

But it was left for another day, when the “investigations” were inaugurated at the - if memory serves - Philly convention in 1997.  By then the orthodox had organized and now the Integrity folks were being challenged (and they started their tinfoil hat conspiracy theories).  And while the challenge continued through Minneapolis, it was still too late.  The key positions of leadership, crowned with the Presiding Bishop’s office in 2006, were locked.

The rebranded TEC leadership, though, either forgot or discounted the strength of the international leadership of the Anglican Communion.  They have used some of the same tactics, though, that were used in General Conventions by casting dispersions on the character of international Communion leaders, even as they tout their so-called “MDG” goals (how they were going to achieve those goals while dragging the church leaders through the mud was anyone’s guest, which makes one realize the MDG goals are window dressing).  Watch how the same tactics used to such success in gaining control of the TEC are now being used internationally.

They thought Rowan Williams was one of them - which is why Jack Spong flipped out and wrote that scathing letter to Rowan a few months basically accusing him of treason.

They thought they could go forward in Minneapolis because Rowan was one of them and they never dreamed he’d call the Primates together - the one group they have not been able (and not that they haven’t tried - and continue to try) to control.  Though it appears that some may be trying.

I remember when the Labour Party came up with Tony Blair as their leader. He was so completely different than any Labour Party type I had ever seen before.  I was in England for an extended period following (recovering?) General Convention 1994 and he was all ready “running” for PM with an American-style campaign (by the UK’s standards) and being interviewed everywhere and was quite impressive, very different then what the Entryist-types were pushing for. 

Tony Blair.

bb

Bill C. and Blue Narrative, unlike most topics on this board, this is an area with which I am very familiar.

It is certainly not illegal to use information sent to you from the computer of someone sending you a message, or a computer used to route that persons communication to you. Its as if you are reading the postscript, or a faded correction, in an old paper letter.  It is, however,  illegal to place a mining device to identify and retrieve messages or data related to messages in which you (or a computer you own or have legal right to monitor) is not a party.  Telcos and internet providers, who have the technical means to that sort of information, have very strict regulations that govern how they use that access.  Violations can result in both civil and criminal penalities.

It is also generally illegal to monitor wireless or wireline voice communications in which you are not a party. 

Third party monitoring of wireless communications has been impractical for all but the most sophisticated since networks were converted from analog to digital.  For a number of reasons, monitoring of wireless communications are a challenge for even the most sophisticated gov’t agencies.  Even with CALEA, it takes substantial resources to activate an effective, multi-jurisdicational wireless surveillance.

Many states have eavesdropping statutes. The applicable federal statutes include the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968; Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986;     
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA); Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) and the 2001 Patriot Act, which modified the above and added several stand alone provisions.

Dr. Radner,

You write:

“He is upset because the GAFCON plans were, it seems, put together without coordination and consulation with the GS Steering group; and not only that, because of this lack of consulation, the bad PR that might/is associated with it in some circles, could marginalize the proposed Catechism”

There may not have been widespread agreement, but that does not mean there was not widespread consultation. And the bad pr, ironically, comes directly from Dr. Poon himself. There has been precisious little but good PR except for his presumptuous series of questions that were, of course, trumpeted on Fulcrum, Covenant and by members of the ACI who are on record opposing Gafcon and the CCP anyway…so the “bad pr” worry is somewhat undermined by the fact that he is the source of it.

As for your suggestion that the underlying theological implications of gafcon could undercut the Catechesis…that could be true and I note again Dr. Poons objections to ++Jensens portrayal of the crisis as one centering on biblical authority rather than ecclesiology.

If in fact the soon to be published Catechesis does define Anglicanism as primarily a process of community decision making about God’s word and will rather than a body built upon the apostles and prophets and living under the Word of God, Jesus Christ, as the chief cornerstone then I do hope that that the Catechism is undercut in some way. “Catholic” order has come to mean in some Anglican circles…“Endless process for the sake of process without meaning”

Betty See,  You cannot know very much at all, if anything, about Dr. Michael Poon and the very important work that he has done for orthodox Anglicans all over the world. The man’s character and integrity are beyond reproach. To use language like “con-artist” and “village gossip” to describe somebody of Dr. Poon’s stature is outrageous—and reprehensible. You may not agree with his concerns and you may not agree with his ideas about we ought to proceed at this point, but you CANNOT impugn his motives.

I have no idea at all who YOU are, though I streongly suspect that you are somebody who is seriously ignorant about how this battle with the revisionists has been fought for DECADES now, by people like Dr. Poon. Anybody sitting at a computer can discover within a few minutes who Dr. Poon is. And both his character and his orthodox credentials are beyond reproach.

A quick glance around cyberspace will reveal that in the last 24 hours or so, a number of important people who initially conceived of GAFCON are NOW realizing that many of his concerns are, indeed, legitimate—and that they need to be addressed. Quickly.

I frequently shoot from the hip. And more than a few people think that I can be a decidedly harsh critic at times. But I, at least, TRY to save my ammunition for the ENEMY—and not for allies such as Dr. Poon, who have toiled valiantly in the Lord’s vineyards for many years now.

Matt, could the considerations you point out have anything to do with this troubling and opaque comment of Dr. Poon to ++Jensen?

I am unclear whether you are not still perpetuating the theological debates that belong to a world long gone. 

Father Kennedy,  I am NOT affiliated with ACI or Fulcrum or Covenant. I am a parishoner in an AMiA parish. I support CCP. I like the basic idea of GAFCON—especially, as Archbishop Akinola has most recently explained it. You cannot accuse ME of having any “partisan” prejudices against GAFCON. I personally know a LOT of the leadership of the CCP. I am on close personal terms with many important leaders throughout the broad orthodox coalitions that are taking shape to battle revisionism and to contend for the faith that was once and for all handed down to the saints. And I can personally attest that Dr. Poons was NOT the ONLY person who had serious concerns about how this thing was being put together and how it was being presented to the world at large. A five minute stroll through cyberspace will reveal that MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY of the orthodox faithful—people who have impeccable orthodox credentials—SHARED Dr. Poon’s concerns. Your WISHING that this was not the case will not make it so. Look around, father Kennedy. Do you only talk to people that agree with you 100%? If so, then I suspect that you are NOT going to get very far in furthering your cause. There is a LOT more to “the Church” than your small corner of it—and there is a LOT more to the orthodox coalition than your small view of it. To say that the ONLY “bad pr” came from Dr. Poon is outrageous. The “bad pr,” such as it is, came from the people convening GAFCON. They blundered in several obvious ways. It is not the end of the world; and right now it looks as if some of these people are—quite properly—taking responsibility for their mistakes and doing their best to mend fences. I am getting tired of ad hominem attacks on Dr. Poon. In a comment above, I upbraided “Betty See” (whoever she is) for her outrageous assault on the character and integrity of a man an immense debt of gratitude is owed by ALL ORTHODOX ANGLICANS—for DECADES of massively important work in defining and defending orthodoxy. If you—or anybody else—thinks that somehow this debt of gratitude can be arbitrarily cancelled simply because you do not find his opinions totally in line with your own, then I think that you need to revisit basic Christian ethics. If all of this sounds unduly harsh, I am sorry. But I am really getting tired of people who want to kill the messenger, simply because he bears bad news. The fact of the matter is that EVEN AS I POST THIS COMMENT several of the people who have organized GAFCON are coming forward to take responsibility for not doing a very good job of it. Relax, Father Kennedy. None of this is a really big deal. And it certainly does not entitle either you or anybody else to slam Dr. Poon. Some mistakes were made. Big deal. They were NOT made by Dr. Poon. HE did not convene GAFCON. Let’s get past all of this, and get on with the business of making GAFCON a genuinely incisive event—as it was, probably, originally INTENDED to be.

bluenarrative,
clarifiation: “get on with the business of making GAFCON a genuinely incisive event—as it was, probably, originally INTENDED to be.”
Incisive or inclusive?

Apologies for all typos and convoluted grammar in the comment above. Time for me to take a breather from all of this, I think… I do wish, however, that while I get away from my keyboard for a while, some of you would, at least, GLANCE at Dr. Michael Poon’s CV…

Well, anyway, I hope GAFCON is both incisive and inclusive.

Uh…bluenarrative,

what on earth are you talking about? I did not say that no one had concerns about Gafcon. I did say that the most prominent negative pr to date has come from Dr. Poon himself which is simply verifiable fact.

Also, you relax. I am not “slamming Dr. Poon”. I am quite critical and dismissive of Dr. Poon’s various questions and I will continue to be so because they are both presumptuous and misrepresentative.

And you bluenarrative are more than free get on with what you want to do but you do not presume that you can tell SF commenters or SF what to “get on” and do. If you want to determine such things, please do get your own blog and determine them, but you will not do that here.

Matt, I’m afraid the “bad PR” associated with GAFCON quite antedates Dr. Poon’s comments, or any of our collective discussion about them.  I was referring, after all, to the sense on the part of certain folk within the Communion, most more liberal, some less so, that this was an inopportune conference, with symbolic meanings that went beyond its stated purpose.  Dr. Poon didn’t cause a problem, it seems to me;  he has merely publicly stated a worry, and in doing so is probably voicing the worries of more than just himself.  (Could it be the gathered group preparing the Catechism?)  Obviously, for those who have welcomed GAFCON’s announcement, the issue of “PR” is already a positive given, and I was not referring to such a group. 

As for your comments regarding the basis for “orthodoxy”:  I would be quite surprised if the centrality and ultimacy and supremacy of the Sripture’s authority for the church were not foundational for the GS catechism they are working on.  The issue raised by Poon earlier is perhaps one more associated with “who decides how the Scripture is read and applied” within the church’s common life, and concerns that a certain kind of theological exegesis (Jensen’s?) be received as normative for a Communion that has never canonized such particularities.  I am, of course, speculating here.

Dr. Radner,

Perhaps we are simply disagreeing about the definition of pr. That there was a good deal of disagreement about Gafcon from communion conservatives is not in question. But that consternation was not bad pr. It was not public. PR after all stands for “public relations”.There was very little bad “pr” and quite alot of good pr until Dr. Poon published his questions for which he has been properly chastised. 

So the point of my rejoinder was that if Dr. Poon was worried about bad public relations, the last thing he should have done is gone public in such a negative way. He could have simply asked his questions privately.

Now, that having been said, I have no problem with the idea of Dr. Poon or anyone else saying, “I disagree with gafcon for these reasons…” but the same person ought not to complain that gafcon is getting bad pr and, moreover, that (expressing public disagreement forthrightly) is not what Dr. Poon did and he has been rightly called on it.

Sarah Hey, et al.  Go back to the first announcement of Gafcon and start all over from that point.  Disregard Dr. Poon totally.  As for him, remember Matthew 5:43-45.  As Father Kennedy is saying, the Gafcon statement speaks for itself.  Dr. Poon’s inserting himself is the problem—disregard him.  Rose

Amen to what Matt+ said in #60!

As I wrote above, the actual post is not that bad. An esteemed Primate would prefer direct conversation, but I’m not averse to public discourse. The deleted #7 completely paints this in a new light, as personal grudge not an academic questioning.

For the record - it is generally regarded to be first in bad taste, second bad spiritual discipline, and third a tool of divisiveness to post open letters and blogs which contain subject matter that should rightfully be discussed in private between concerned individuals. Regardless of Dr. Poon’s CV, or his intent he is roundly guilty in either case of at minimum airing concerns best discussed in private in what is essentially and effectively a public forum (the blog). To assume he did not have that intent is to imply that he does not understand the impact of blogging on the internet, a troubling misunderstanding and a weakness or ignorance that should be corrected. This would indicate that given his role and responsibility he is incompetent to be blogging until he more rightly understands the potential that blogging contains as a communication (and propaganda) tool.

At worst he understood exactly what he was doing and did so deliberately - perhaps out of pique at not being in the inner circle of the planning of the event, or any of a sundry other reasons of polity or personal agenda. In which case the questions are deliberate attempts to derail or at least cast suspicions about the event. The structure of his questions and logic fail at several points to drive to a productive result - which lends credence to the worst case assumptions many have made here. Again, was he being deliberately obtuse in his questions or simply incompetent in expressing himself clearly. Either case is troubling and call into question his intent.

This consistent posturing in public, this ongoing pharisaical desire to declaim loudly in public by both sides is thoroughly disgusting. There seems to be an equitable desire to descend into the public forum muck and provide insufficient and mis-information in order to kick up enough fuss to obscure the underlying motivations from the casual or concerned observer. I would like to take the PB, Dr. Poon and several others firmly by their ears and provide an directed opportunity of corporal repentance on their individual backsides followed by writing 200 times, “I will not carry on like a complete idiot in the public forums”.

Deja Vu,  I meant to say “incisive.” These days, “inclusive” does not figure very largely in my vocabulary. I have never really questioned either the integrity or the intentions of the people who have organized GAFCON. Just like Father Kennedy (surprise!), I was and remain prepared to take them at their word and construe their press release in the plain and obvious way. I know a lot of these people. And I know they are GOOD people—neither duplicitous nor conspiratorial. But I thought the press release and the accompanying FAQ were unfortunately phrased. And it was not difficult for me to see ways in which all sorts of people—both inside the orthodox coalition and outside of it—might misconstrue what was going on. Dr. Poon was simply the first prominent person to articulate some of these concerns. And, in my opinion, there was nothing at all improper about him raising these issues. Nor was there anything particularly improper about the venue that he chose to do so, since he was clearly giving voice to a very broad spectrum of the orthodox representing multiple continents.

This is my opinion. You may agree or disagree with it. You may find fault with Dr. Poon’s rhetoric and/or his chosen means of communicating his concerns. Legitimate arguments can be offered on any of these issues. But it bothers me when these arguments seem to veer off in a direction that looks, to me, to be ad hominem attacks on Dr. Poon.

As far as the issue of where, precisely, this “bad pr” originated, I would say this: every revisionist site and publication that I am aware of was ripping the GAFCON press release to shreds long before Dr. Poon first posed his rhetorical questions. Am I the only person on this site who has access to Nexus? More to the point, if this “bad pr” originated with Dr. Poon, why are the people who organized GAFCON now accepting responsibility for not doing it as well as they might have?

If the esteemed Primate wrote personally and privately to Michael Poon why did Michael put it on the GS website in the first place?

#63, masternav, thank you. Dead on.

bluenarrative :

Can we still call Dr. Poon a big whiner?  I sure hope so because his little article up there sure smacks of it. 

I want you to know I do NOT know anyone important in the CCP and I haven’t even met my own bishop yet.  No one calls me about their decisions about the AC and no one probably really cares about my opinion either.

However, as a mother I can discern whining and Dr. Poon’s missive fits the bill.

For as Fr. Matt just said:

So the point of my rejoinder was that if Dr. Poon was worried about bad public relations, the last thing he should have done is gone public in such a negative way. He could have simply asked his questions privately.

This is the principle point…

BN, efforts which diminish or split the orthodox from the best path are serious. That is why Poon, with the help of the ACI/Fulcrum folks, published this letter.  He obviously thinks that GAFCON is not the best path because it threatens to interfere with the pursuit of the all important covenant, which he apparently believes will result in TEC’s internal reform or voluntary seperation from the Anglican Communion.

I am one of those who has lost any faith that the ABC (much less the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC) will be part of any covenant that actually has the substance and teeth to reform or exclude TEC from an ABC lead communion.  The Lambeth invitations, and the ABC’s public comments in NO and afteward, were the final straw.  So I disagree with Poon. 

I am certainly in favor of reducing logistical barriers for attendance by changing the date or location.  But we are kidding ourselves if we believe that is the real issue here.  The real issue is as Sarah Hey discribed it, the divide between those that still believe in the realistic possibility of an ABC centered solution and those that don’t.

bluenarrative, you stated above in #64:
<blackqoute>This is my opinion. You may agree or disagree with it. You may find fault with Dr. Poon’s rhetoric and/or his chosen means of communicating his concerns. Legitimate arguments can be offered on any of these issues. But it bothers me when these arguments seem to veer off in a direction that looks, to me, to be ad hominem attacks on Dr. Poon.</blockquote>

If a leader, who is not only self-proclaimed but generally acknowledged as one chooses to utilize a public forum to air concerns which rightfully belong within a private discussion or a logistical discussion then I strongly and stridently disagree with your opinion. Leadership carries with it both huge responsibilities and cautions that cannot be disregarded lightly. It demonstrates poor judgement on his part as a leader to have done this in the manner in which he did it. Period. It doesn’t matter how much the laity, the clerics or others WANT to know or WANT to have their concerns expressed, they have forums and tools by which to do that. As someone who has performed in leadership secularly and in ministry, I cannot condone what he did as either wise or productive. He could well have achieved what eventually occurred by way of clarification through direct communication. The poor expression of his concerns only made it worse overall. And generated so much speculation, calumny and diatribe - I cannot see any substantive good that is reasonably defensible in it.

Dr. Radnor, I applaud your courage of posting here, particularly since Dr. Seitz launched such a diatribe over on T19. I would like to ask you some pretty straight questions, of course you are NOT obligated to answer, but I do think it would help us all understand where everyone (even Dr.s, Poon and Toon” are coming from.

First, an answer to why Dr. Poon quoted the “private and confidential letter, from an un-named Primate”. He posted it because it enabled him to cast suspicion on the “author”.  We all know who and what he was talking about.  And its sad that he felt led to do such a thing.

Now, for you Dr. Radnor:

1. It is some of our opinion that you truly believe that some sort of disclipine will (eventually) come from the “instruments of unity” of the AC?  Is that true?

2.  Do you sincerely believe that the “soon to be published Catechesis ” will actually be strong enough to make anyone consider NOT agreeing to it?  Admittedly I haven’t seen anything but the first draft, and even that seemed to lacking in anything that might keep TEC/ECUSA from signing on).

3. Do you believe that even “strong language” in the foregoing document will be taken seriously by TEC/ECUSA?  Is there some sort of “discliplinary” agreement in it?  We have been thoroughly disabused of the notion that any instrument (or member) of the Anglican Communion has any power to do anything except withdraw, and TEC most certainly will not, there will be no reason to, no matter what it says.

Please take these questions in the spirit with which they are intended.  What I’m asking for us, is sort of “straight talking”,
We truly want to know what you, Dr. Seitz, and even Dr. Poon truly believe.

Blessings,
Grannie Gloria

WOW I’m glad I’m a Catholic with a Pope.

#71 when the RCs have weak popes, the same thing happens carefully secreted amongst the cardinals, at least until the next guy gets elected. The likes of us just don’t hear much about it.

Tom:

Any church political wrangling is like making sausage. I’m happy to eat my sausages, unless I see them get made.

Masternav,  With all due respect to you, Dr. Michael Poon hardly qualifies as a “self-proclaimed” leader of any sort. You should take a look at his background. I think you will find it impressive. And I also think that, if you take a cursory glance beyond his CV and look at the substance of what he has done and how he has accomplished so much, you will be impressed with his inherent humility.

I think it is fair for somebody, such as yourself or, as another example, Father Kennedy, to contend that what he did caused more trouble than it was worth in the end. I would respectfully disagree, but that is certainly a valid position to hold. However, it is now fairly plain to everybody that he had, in fact, exhausted all private channels of communication, prior to going public with his concerns.

The matter—at least as it has been bandied about on orthodox web sites over the past few days—is now, essentially resolved. His major concerns, apparently, have been satisfied. And the folks who put out the GAFCON press release have, in effect, exonerated Dr. Poon and have, instead, assumed responsibility for not being as clear as they might have been initially. That satisfies me. And it should also satisfy you—and Father Kennedy.

Throughout this discussion, I have gone to great lengths to underscore the fact that I am, for the most part, very much in favor of GAFCON. I think that the people who have thus far been organizing GAFCON made some fairly obvious blunders. And they have now concurred. We can all go forward now. And THAT is a good thing.

If I have seemed strident or shrill, at times, it was simply because I am, personally, of the opinion that Dr. Poon’s motivations and intentions should be beyond reproach—by anybody located anywhere on the orthodox spectrum. If you do not know much about Dr. Poon, then take my word for it: he’s one of the good guys; he is NOT trying to cause trouble or difficulty for ANYBODY who is seeking to uphold the faith that was once and for all handed down to the saints.

Bluenarrative #54,
You are correct when you say “You cannot know very much at all, if anything, about Dr. Michael Poon”, I don’t know anything about Dr. Poon and very little about GAFCON but I want to keep an open mind about GAFCON, until I hear what GAFCON has to say for itself.
I am glad to hear that Dr. Poon is a defender of Orthodoxy but his letter and comments did not give me that impression and I am tired of the gossip about a draft letters being composed on someone else’s computer, I consider this an invasion of privacy and I don’t like the insinuations associated with it.  That is what I responded to.

And the folks who put out the GAFCON press release have, in effect, exonerated Dr. Poon and have, instead, assumed responsibility for not being as clear as they might have been initially…. I think that the people who have thus far been organizing GAFCON made some fairly obvious blunders. And they have now concurred.

bluenarrative

Could you please point me to the source for this information (if it is public)?  Thank you.

Mark McCall :

Re: Dr. Poon’s Exoneration

Exactly what I was going to write… where is this?  Dr. Poon’s visible ink website with the lemon juice mouse you have to erase to see the writing?

Don’t see it - and until you provide some verification, BlueN. I will be skeptical of it.

I trust the orthodox Primates, the CCP and those who have given MUCH to uphold the Faith.  Therefore, I see no problem with GAFCON - and at this point, I could care less whether it’s affiliated with Cantebury or not.  The ABC’s opinion is about as useful as the ‘legend’ of the Magi - IMO.  I’ll stick with Matthew - and those who believe him.

Well, an awful lot of water has passed under the bridge since I last ventured a comment on this thread (see #17, far above).  And yet, I still feel much the same now as way back then.  There has been too much whining and freaking out in this supposed no-whining and no-freakout zone.  Too many have rushed to judgment when the facts were sketchy and unclear.

I don’t really have much to add therefore, that I didn’t say the first time.  Except to stand up for one of the newest members of the NRAFC, bluenarrative, who bravely risked the ire of many in defending the integrity and solid record of Dr. Michael Poon, as a leading orthodox scholar in the Global South.  Way to go, bluenarrative!  You’ve shown the kind of guts and perseverance that it takes to be a leader in the New Reformation. 

Remember what Kipling said about one of the things that makes someone a man (my son)?  One is when you can keep your head about you when all around you are losing theirs (i.e., stay cool under pressure).  I’m proud of you.

David Handy+ 
Founder, NRAFC

BN, Michael Poon may be all you say —orthodox and a person of great accomplishment.  However, the manner in which he has gone public with his “questions” and with the email smack of arrogance.  That is inexcusable.

Why don’t we just chill out on the unchristian ad hominem rubbish and look at the issue, rather than the person. A bit more thoughtful, reasoned argument and a bit less name-calling would be a living example of our intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am trying to hold myself back, but what does Dr. Poon’s CV has to do with his behavior?

I doubt that many persons are saying he is unqualified academically, to say/do what he said/did. True these matters are important to Anglican future, but that email was confidential. Doesn’t that mean anything, especially to priests, people who might hear confessions?

Honestly, what good has been achieved by this release?

bluenarrative regarding #74, I humbly and undeservedly accept your respect. The whole of the sentence you excerpted contains my acknowledgement of the general acceptance of his role in leadership. In the heat of our service as leaders, we do forget ourselves and the impact we have and can succumb to self-righteous justification that the ends justify the means. I freely acknowledge Rev. Dr. Poon’s considerable role in orthodoxy. However, if I may take a stroke or two from a poignant example: if during the course of a heated battle an acknowledged armaments expert mistakenly pulls the pin on a grenade and then instead of lobbing it in the general direction of the enemy, lets it fall amidst his own and friendly troops, there are consequences. At that moment it doesn’t matter that he is a master of armaments, it only matters that his action - whether purposeful or inadvertent results in the wounding and confusion of his own comrades. He may have saved countless other lives prior to that point, and that will be considered in the aftermath as the issue is reviewed. It does not matter to the wounded, it does not matter to the enemy. All that matters is that someone who should have been more careful - who should have had the expertise to handle the situation - didn’t. We categorically don’t know if in fact he had exhausted all private avenues of expressing his concern. That the authors of the information in question consent that they should have been clearer in what they said is fortuitous. That his blog posting caused the furor that it did I view as effectively negating any positive that happened to come out of it. I assume that he meant the best in his effort - I ought to, based on his reputation. But the hoots and hollars from the adversary still echo across the battlements as our disarray encourages them, and now have to deal with the wounds and try to prevent such accidents in the future. Likewise my sincere respects to you , dear brother in Christ, and my admiration for your defense of the good Doctor. May it prove that he was of the best intents in all of this. Having fought in the trenches for so long, perhaps I am equally to blame for judging harshly other leaders when they sow confusion into our own work. To which, I will freely and repentantly confess and lay at the foot of the cross.

“. . . ad hominem attacks on Dr. Poon.”

Exactly.  I’ve been shocked by the fury directed against Dr. Poon, who is indeed a considerable theologian; he has “paid his dues” in orthodox Anglican causes, and I think he was speaking for many when he voiced his questions—and he must have judged that public transparency was best.  I felt discouraged to learn that the GS was not united over the Middle East conference, but I certainly didn’t prefer to be ignorant about it (it was obvious, anyway, on the blogs, even without him). The primatial tongue-lashing that Dr. Poon received seemed very inappropriate to me—it also shocked me, in fact.  And as far as I can see, some of the questions still haven’t been answered.  I’m particularly concerned that the conference was announced without the agreement of ++Mouneer Anis or the bishop of Jerusalem, without the presence of ++Drexel Gomez—and apparently without the knowledge of the GS website theologians.

So Paula,

would you consider the primate’s letter to Dr. Poon an ad-hominem attack?

Matt+, I would not exactly call the Primate’s letter an “ad hominem attack” but a very harsh, angry “dressing-down” that was (in my opinion) worse than was warranted. I don’t think he created a “public scandal” all by himself, for instance. And there are ominous-sounding hints that Dr. Poon has done unspeakable things: an arch reference to “what you have perpetrated,” for instance.  When I agreed that there were “ad hominem” comments about him, I was remembering a comparison with a “con-man” and some other lines from the bloggers.  He has been the general target here although I think he had understandable reasons to bring questions to light.

But Paola, the primate’s letter was private and to Dr Poon personally. Why would Dr Poon immediately put it on a web site?

re:

would you consider the primate’s letter to Dr. Poon an ad-hominem attack?

Ad hominem attacks are sometimes necessary and proper. And they belong, for the most part, in private communication. Such as an email. Not in a public letter.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Which is why Dr Poon’s posting of the private letter was so strange.

I think we are very much blurring the definition of an “ad hominem argument” here.

An ad hominem argument is a negative statement about a person disguised as an “argument.”

Let’s say, for instance, that Matt presents an argument that anyone that goes to Lambeth is immoral and apostate.

Let’s say that my response to Matt is—“Dear Matt, in response to your argument, I wish to first note that you are lazy”—that is an ad hominem argument.

On the other hand, let’s say that I say in response to Matt—“Dear Matt, in my detailed response to you I want first to note that your reasoning is unusually sloppy—and then list the three areas where you reveal sloppy, incoherent reasoning”—that is not an ad hominem.

I have not said that Matt himself is “sloppy”—I have described my assessment of his argument.

There might be other occasions—when I am not responding to an argument of Matt—that I wish to tell him that I believe that he is lazy.

Even my expression of an opinion about Matt—that he is lazy—is not an “ad hominem argument.”  It is not in response to an argument or substituting for a response to an argument.  It may be unwise.  Or unkind.  Or in fact, dead wrong.  But it could not be characterized as an “ad hominem argument.”

One sees ad hominem’s a lot when folks of one political persuasion argue with folks of another, and their disdain and contempt for the other person overwhelms their ability to argue rationally against the arguments of the other person.

For instance, liberals often used to comment—in response to an argument of Rush Limbaugh’s about the real meaning of a tax-cut, for instance—that he was “fat.” 

Now—he was fat.  So that is—or was—an honest, though unkind, public assessment about the person of Rush Limbaugh.  But when a person made such an assessment about the person [not the argument] of Rush Limbaugh and attempted to claim that it was a “valid argument”—that was when it became an “ad hominem argument.”

I wish that we would be more careful when we sling around words like “ad hominem argument” in these threads.  It really does need to be applied to 1) a negative assessment of the person making an argument which one does not like, and 2) disguised as a valid rational argument against that person’s argument.

Sarah, I think you are wrong about the use of ad hominem on this thread because you are insensitive and not in touch with your feelings.  You are a gen-Xer and don’t feel the pain of boomers.  You have a dog and don’t care about the feelings of cat owners.  You have a name and could care less about the identity needs of an un-named Primate.
I tap you’re a bad person and can’t post on this thread anymore. Infinity.

Sarah, thank you for the incisive corrective.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Thank you Sarah for that wonderful example and exhortation.

However, I do think Dr. Poon made did use “poor form” which does border on ad hominem fallacy when he mentions a letter, does not name the party but makes allusion to a past article, thus an appeal to the “suspicion” that article raised. There was only one episode of someone making conjecture by reading metadata that I’m aware. Dr. Poon could mean +Ormobi & +Guernsey or +Kolini & +Murphy, but somehow I doubt it and he’d risk bearing false witness by trying to deceive with such an infamous story to make the connection so quickly. I think people have been preceptive because the allusion and the controversy if something is ghost written or not is the “to the man” part. If my boss signed something, it’s from him, if a Primate signed something, it does not matter who may have been involved in writing it, Dr. Poon’s inference is like calling the Primate “fat.” I’d have to disagree, that folks were preceptive and did correctly spot the fallacy.

The rest of the stuff, I’d agree with you. I think he error is in the now-deleted comment not in the actual post. In fact, I’d disagree with the Primate, I think raising academic questions is good and we should think through these things and the ask hard questions. The ax to grid appeared in the comment that Simon Sarmiento captured.

Dear Grannie (#70),

Thanks for your questions.  Briefly, in response:

1.  I don’t do well predicting things (I thought the Rockies had a chance in the World Series, and I knew them quite well in their limited area of activity—but the Anglican Communion and its various leaders are even less of a known quantity to me).  So, in fact, I don’t have an opinion on what is “really” going to happen.

There are, as you know, many “scenarios” out there.  Some are ones I think are hopeful, others less so, others simply sad.  Some, therefore, are ones I would prefer, and would work for if I could;  others are ones I would pray against, and would work against.

A main reason I would prefer the option you ask about—Communion discipline of TEC—and continue to work for it (albeit more in terms of writing than in organizing things, although I do my best on the latter where it is possible), is because I think it the most congruent with how I understand the calling of the Church:  to live as a Body, to act as a Body, to respond as a Body to what is wrong, the Body being Christ’s own and therefore in harmony with the very spirit and flesh of our Lord.  That, of course, is a calling that we are far from being faithful to, quite apart from the problems besetting Anglicans— hence our many divisions, disagreements, errors, and long history of mutual anger and even bodily destruction as and among Christians.  But one must start somewhere. 

If indeed the Anglican Communion, as it is emerging in its nascent life, could indeed find a way, as a Body, to reorient the teaching and witness of its members (in this case regarding sexual life, common listening to the Scriptures, and mutual regard in the posture and person of Christ Jesus, among other things), and do so both clearly but also fairly and charitably and without witnessing to the power of anger and hostility in the process, that would be a small gift of faith to the Lord Himself, as well as to other Christians.  Since I believe that this is in the character of a calling, I pursue it as best I can, whether or not on this day or the next I really feel it is likely to suceed or not.  That is God’s business. 

At some point—and all of us must do this all the time and in every calling—I must examine (and continue in fact to do) if I and others have rightly discerned this calling in the first place.  For the present, nothing has led me to question it—indeed, the “opposition” to this calling, as it were, confirms its rightness in my mind,for the alternatives have become less and less illuminating of our Lord’s own walk.  Such is my sense of things.

2.  I think you are confusing two things:  the draft Covenant, which is indeed in the public realm and receiving comments from around the Communion, and the Global South proposed Anglican Catechism, which is something Dr. Poon, among others, has been working on, under the direction of the Global South Steering Committee in some fashion. The latter has not been made public, yet because it is not yet prepared.  Furthermore, its place in Communion discussion is, as yet, only informal.

The draft Covenant, if I have understood you rightly, is something you feel is too weak and innocuous, and will have little effect, even if adopted in its present form, in properly ordering the Communion’s life, witness, and teaching.  You may be right about that.  I would point out, however:

a.  there are sections of the Draft Covenant that are highly disturbing to the leadership of TEC.  One of them, as you perhaps know, involves the matter of adjudication of disputes over important Communion-affecting realities.  Many TEC leaders feel that this section is “too strong”, and provides the Primates in particular with “too much power”.  I do not believe that even in its present form, then, that it would be acceptable to General Convention or the House of Bishops alone.  (It needs to be said, furthermore, that these kinds of sections were added to the Global South proposed Covenant in order to strengthen it.)

b.  The Draft is only that:  it will be revised in the light of Communion comments and mutual discussion by the Covenant Design Group at the end of January.  It will then be presented to the Lambeth Conferenece where, it is hoped, it will be revised again and agreed upon by the gathered bishops of the Communion.  What direction will these various revisions take?  I cannot say.  I am only one voice on the Design Group, and it is, in any case, out of our hands after early February.  In my own mind, I believe that the discussion of Scripture needs to be strengthened, and that the discussion of adjudication needs to be clarified.  There are other elements also that need to be addressed.  But we will see.  One of the realities of the Church of Christ is that one doesn’t always get one’s own way!  But one reason why I believe that attendance at the Lambeth Conference is not only a good idea, but actually a demanded vocation of our dispersed Anglican bishops around the world, is that the Covenant’s potential shape is too important to leave to others, and that the bishops in fact have a duty from God to respond to it and shape it in council with one another. 

3.  I think, finally, that the work being done by Dr. Poon and others on a proposed Anglican Catechism—a document that would lay out the basics of Christian teaching for Anglican Christians around the world—is a very important and certainly interesting one.  I look forward to seeing their work.  Even more than the Covenant, however, I would guess that their proposal will involve many discussions and arguments over content, since Anglicans (as we know) have some diverse theological views, even within the gamut of more traditional attitudes.  But their efforts will be very useful, at this time of transition within Anglicanism, in helping all of us discern and refocus with respect to our teaching ministries.  I would, from afar, share Dr. Poon’s hope that this effort not get derailed within the dyanmics of the Communion’s receipt, interest, and discussion.

Dr. Radner—I appreciate your helpful comments here. 

Over on the T19 thread, I posted an alternate “scenario” as a possibility, and wondered if there is any way to surmount the challenges of such a scenario—here it is:

In the spirit of my hashing this out in my own mind, here is another alternate scenario.

—The Lambeth Conference 2008 comes up with a text for an Anglican Covenant that is strong, due to GS provinces being there; also, lots of great resolutions are passed [just throwing that one in]

—ECUSA considers the text of the Covenant at GC 2009, and they pass a resolution agreeing to study it further over the next three years as well as a nice resolution stating that they “affirm the spirit of “covenant” and “receive ‘covenant’” in a spirit of communal love for the Anglican Communion, of which they are constituent members; the HOB meets and states that it cannot act for the whole church; the Executive Council states that it has reservations about the Covenant and that it violates the polity and canons of the church, but offers an amended form of the covenant, which it approves

—The Anglican Communion Primates meet and ask ECUSA to clarify whether they have actually affirmed the covenant or not.

—[insert exact mirror of past four years here, including Lambeth Commission, Windsor Report, Primates Communiques, HOB meetings, Joint Standing Committee reports of approval, sub-group reports, and mini-committees to help Rowan Williams make up his mind as to what actually happened]; also ECUSA makes strong case that it has not had time to “consider” the covenant; decision to hasty.

—four more years pass

—it is finally agreed that ECUSA did not actually formally approve the covenant

—whatever enforcement mechanisms are in the covenant now kick in in 2012; ECUSA Primate is, incidentally, on the main adjudicatory body, leading to a further rivened Communion—multiple meetings and adjudications occur with the enforcement mechanisms that issue a ruling that no, ECUSA did not approve covenant—ECUSA now an “associate member” of Communion which meaning has mistakenly never been spelled out in the covenant

—2016—much buzz begins occurring; will ECUSA be invited to Lambeth?  If so, what status?  This in part due to nobody having a clue as to what associate status means.  Further—ECUSA now claims that whatever associate status means—the key word is “membership”—*associate membership* is the important thing, and thus ECUSA is still a “member” even if only “associate” which they could care less about; GS Primates begin announcing alternate meetings after Rowan refuses to make anything clear about invitations; outraged responses from Fulcrum/ACI/other to announced alternate meetings; Craig Goodrich tells Sarah that she is being hasty in her decision making

—2017—the final Lambeth meeting preparations begin taking place under Rowan’s watch;

—2017—Rowan invites ECUSA.

Now what?

I have a few ideas that might help [or might now, since I haven’t thought them through entirely].

1) Embed the process of adjudicating covenant violations within the Covenant.

2) Include within the Covenant the precise wording of the assent that each province must give through its synod or other highest legislative body.

3) Include a definition of the precise penalties for “associate” status, should the Covenant be violated and that violation be adjudicated by the appropriate body.

These are only some ideas.  I would like to hear more ideas from others, and any feedback or thoughts on my scenario above by Dr. Radner, if he has the time.

Oh yes—include within the Covenant a timeline of the adjudication process with clear formal deadlines.

Sarah, your commentar on the proposed covenant has the merit that, if successful, can nullify the concerns of, say, Matt Kennedy. The best possible scenario is that the emerging covenant becomes, in essence, the new constitution of the Anglican Communion. All who agree to the covenant [new constitution] would become part of the [new] Anglican Communion.

In this case, Matt’s concern would become irrelevant. Invitations to Lambeth by the ABC would not be constitutive of membership in the Anglican Communion. Instead, being a signatory to the covenant [new constitution] would determine membership.

It is clear that this process would take several years—perhaps three. There is no reason why it should take until 2018. If successful, we would no longer have a Canterbury-centered communion. We would have a covenant-centered communion. We would no longer be dependent on the whims or leadership qualities of a single personage. Instead, we would be dependent on the conciliar processes of the whole communion in preparation and interpretation of the covenant, and secondarily on the instruments of discipline established by that covenant.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Sarah, you raise an important point about the precision required in the language of any covenant.  Having spent some years doing legislative drafting, I became aware that turning excellent concepts into legislative language requires great precision.  Otherwise the scenario you describe (deja vu all over again) is likely.  A well written covenant will have not only clear concepts and expectations, but also be written in language that leaves no wriggle room—no place for 815 or GC or the HOB to keep passing the buck.

Now to the realism of getting this done.  One reason organizations like the Anglican Communion have difficulty in putting this sort of thing together is that compromise is always lurking behind the curtain.  If it’s impossible to get iron-clad language regarding the kind of things you described above, it may not be worth the effort.  Having a covenant you can’t enforce may be worse than none at all.

Sarah, in #13, wrote:

Sorry, but after my time in ECUSA I am sick to death of my revisionist “betters” hiding, and lying, and sneaking, and covering up, and papering over, and pretending that we all “agree” or have some sort of “unity” when we clearly do not have unity.

I think the preceding could be fashioned into an epitaph for what had been the once actually united Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

There is no unity in TEC.  NONE!

Sarah,

I do think all of those ideas would significantly improve the draft covenant.

I do not necessarily agree with Br-r Rabbit that such a covenant would necessarily mean a covenant rather than Canterbury centerered communion unless one of the NECESSARY colararies to not being a constituent member of the Covenant communion would be no participation in the councils of communion, somehow removing the ABC from the position of cheif invitation giver…to do that would, I think, require something of a dismantling of the IU’s that the covenant is centered upon.

If however, some way could be found to remove through the covenant Canterbury from the center of the Communion I would certainly be for it.

But I am not sure that such a thing could be done at a Lambeth conference where TEC is in attendance…not because the votes would not be there, I think they might, but because immediately after Lambeth the same problems arise that we have already discussed and that you articulated very well in your post above. Will Lambeth consent to not being the center…will he reliquish his power of invitation or use it in a way that is consistent with the covenant? Will we need to wait until 2018 to find out…

I think your suggestions certainly pull the Covenant out of its present foggy and toothless state, but it all depends, still, on Canterbury’s willingness or unwillingness to act in accordance with it and so far we have seen a fundemental unwillingness to act in keeping with Communion and primatial agreements.

When the history of these times are written, RW’s decision to invite TEC to Lambeth08 will be seen, I think, as perhaps the most profound ecclesiological blunder made by an ABC in the last 100 years

Dear friends,
First, a thnk you to Dr. Radner for stepping in to provide some focus and context for this discussion.

Second, let me beg your forgiveness and the Lord’s for allowing myself to get caught up in the multi-scenario blame game on this and several other threads in the last few days.  I will do my best in the future to remember some of my own words- essentially that the Lord calls us to be patient and charitable with one another- even with archbishops and theologians.  The time may come for me to leave this Church for another, but that time is not yet.  We cannot assume that there is no hope in Lambeth ‘08 until after the fact.  We must remember that the reason we are all here is that once, long ago, the Son of God became flesh, sacrificed Himself for us and then rose from the dead, and in so doing, conquered death.  How many thinkers, writers, philosophers and theologians writing in 30 AD included that in their rational scenarios?

Indeed, there were prophesies that exactly this would happen.  And if we look at other books of the same text, we will see that what is happening now was also prophesied- that false teachers would rise among us to spread a false gospel.  Are we called to develop scenarios?  Or are we called to deepen and renew our faith in the Word?  I would argue that latter is the case. 

For myself, I will do well to remember that.

Your brother in Christ,
TJ

Sarah,

Your scenario is certainly plausible.  But, as I said, I am no good at predicting.  And in the end, I am not sure that prediction is the best basis for discerning vocation.  (That does not exclude, however, the demand for “counting the cost”, which involves, I recognize, a certain kind of predictability.)

More interesting to me are your suggestions regarding the Covenant.  I am a strong proponent of your 1.)—embedding the adjudication process within the Covenant.  The current Section 6 (so controversial) is already a step in that direction, but requires greater clarity.  I would certainly support your recommendation of 2.)—including the precise language of assent to the Covenant, within the Covenant itself.

As for the next two, I am sympathetic, but not sure of the political realities associated with them.  I could say more, but this is probably not the place.  Time-lines, for instance, are always good in theory.  But they come up against all kinds of problems, both in terms of equity and legality.  The right to a “speedy trial”, for instance, is clearly undercut in our society on all kinds of levels.  But would legislating a time-line for trials truly be helpful in dealing with the problem?  Many, many people would say absolutely not.

I am indeed interested in people’s constructive thoughts on these matters.  To date, most of the official (and even unofficial) responses I have seen to the Draft Covenant have been so broad-brushed as to be practically without usefulness.  Liberals, by and large, reject the idea of a Covenant altogether.  When they get beyond simply (or elaborately) stating this blanket rejection, their practical suggestions for an actual draft tend to be offered in the form of a kind of inclusive stripping of all detail.  I have been helped by some more conservative responses that have sought to clarify language, focus, substance, and so on.  But even from this side, there has been too much (to my mind) blanket pessimism motivating responses, so that concrete and constructive counsel has been obscured by rejectionist hand-wringing. 

As I have repeatedly said:  the Covenant Design Group proved a focused and surprisingly consensual body a year ago.  But our meeting in a month’s time will surely be very different in tone.  First, there were absent from the original meeting certain members.  Their presence, with views colored more by the public discussions regarding the Covenant and by the political events of the past year rather than by our common counsel as a group, is a quite unpredictable factor.  Second, there HAVE been political events within the Communion over the past year that surely have a bearing on people’s attitudes.  Will they, as a whole, be supportive of the common mind and direction of the group, however informed by various constructive responses to the Draft?  Or will these events prove destructive of that dynamic?  I cannot say, although I pray God will enable the former, and not the latter.  And it is also for this reason, among others, that I am grateful for what the Abp. of Canterbury has in fact said regarding communion life over the past year.  (I leave aside the wisdom and prudence of his actions or lack of them, as people may see it.)  He has focused and reiterated that focus upon the reality of a “Scripture-reading and self-subjecting community” as an important element in the Communion’s Christian Anglican identity.  This, I believe, will be most helpful in our disucssions.

Again, I am personally and on behalf of our common work, indeed quite interested in the constructive ideas people have regarding the Draft Covenant.

I find the recent posts by Dr. Radner, Sarah and Matt much more fruitful than our earlier discussions related to Gafcon and would be interested in hearing more about these issues from those of you more experienced than me.  Matt+, I tend to line up more with you on the issues of strategy and am likely to be making decisions related to the in/out strategies prior to Lambeth, however, would acceptable discipline still be achieved if votes were taken at Lambeth, with TEC present that “expelled” them or reduced their status to non-voting prior to an examination of the covenant?

It would probably be an interesting exercise to post the proposed covenant as it currently exists…one section at a time, with the goal of proposing improvements in it rather than simply the usual expressions of like/dislike.  Proposed amendments to the section with explanations for why the said proposal is justified…

I second johnp’s proposal!

Ephraim, I’ve googled a bit, and I can’t find the dates of the next Covenant Design Group meeting.  I realize security concerns may limit what details you can share.  However, the intercessors would like to have the dates for their prayer calendars.  Thanks.

It would probably be an interesting exercise to post the proposed covenant as it currently exists…one section at a time, with the goal of proposing improvements in it

I have wondered whether one can say that a “proposed covenant” (in the singular) actually exists, or whether there are not in fact several proposals out there, with several levels of support, and marked within themselves with several proposed deletions, inclusions, modifications, etc.

Have we really reached the stage where there is a working document which one can call “the” proposed covenant? I would love to see it.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Dear Dr. Radnor, thank you for a clear answer. However, I didnt’ really want you to “Prophesy”, just tell us what you believed, and perhaps your fellow ACI members.

Unfortunately, I see very little hope for the orthodox in even the best suggested time lines.  Lambeth, is in 2008, but more important to TEC is GC in 2009. I wholeheartedly believe with + Schofield that the time is very short.

I don’t know how much monitoring folks do as to the movement and plans of the “reappraisers”, but I can testify that GC 2009, will be the final and decisive blow to those who base their belief on Holy Scripture.  The GC believe they are free to change the Gospel to suit the times, and I fervently believe that SS Blessings, the removal of any barrier to the consecrations of Bishops engaged in active homosexual relations. Add to that the alterations being made to Canon IV(the discliplinary canon??) for including the laity, the tightening of some parts of Denis Canon, and numerous other activities 2009 becomes a formidable barrier to any reform of TEC.

In the meantime, no matter how orthodox our “reform leaders” are, children are being led astray, lawsuits are progressing, preparations are being made to depose faithful bishops and priests, and people are fleeing to safer harbors, and any who are trying to provide some “safety”, are held up to ridicule, etc.etc. While Christians are being asked to wait for what at this time seems somewhat nebulous action on their behalf.

I live in the Diocese of South Carolina, still a faithful diocese. This month we will finally consecrate our twice-elected bishop. Did you know the ABC is sending a “monitor” to the consecration, because the liberals are still raising cane about the fact he came from the Diocese of San Joaquin?   

So, I hope you can see why the caution to “wait”, and any aspersions cast at those who wish to try to organize is met with such extreme skepticism.  Waiting for many of us, just mean the chains that bind us to an apostate organization are beginning to chafe, and there is no doubt in our minds that they will become tighter until we throw them off with or without the help of any covenant.

Again, thank you for listening, and answering our questions.

Grannie Gloria

Thank you Matt, and Ephraim Radner, and various others who have commented on the scenario stuff which has been the majority of my comments on this thread. 

I appreciate the feedback very much, particulary the paragraphs about the lack of usefulness of some of the feedback on the Covenant on all sides.  I also appreciate in general not being castigated as “a person without hope” for having the gall to articulate the horrible scenarios—based on past experience—that seem highly likely.  If we were able to offer feedback on how to keep from having those scenarios, it would be nice—since preparation for various dire futures is one of my primary problem-solving methods.

Sadly—I do not know where the latest [or last official draft] of the Covenant is.

If I did—I would post it and we could offer suggestions or feedback, without any gnashings about Poon, or invisible unnamed Primates, or ad hominems, or the evils of abstaining from or attending the Lambeth meeting.  We also would not simply offer broadly inclusive stripping of details or rejectionist hand-wringing.

Could someone with knowledge help me find the latest official draft?

Sarah and others:

There is only ONE “official” Proposed Draft Covenant, prepared by the Covenant Design Group, presented to the Primates in Dar es Salaam last February, and commended by them as a whole to the Communion for response and then discussion at Lambeth.  (Please note, therefore, that the Covenant process is one that the Primates are behind.) That draft can be found at the Anglican Communion Office official website under “Anglican Covenant”.  It is appropriate to look both at the “Report” and the “Draft Text”, since there is a theological introduction to the text which is ambiguously printed, sometimes as part of the Covenant itself (where it should be), sometimes as part of the Report.

The Covenant Design Group is not a secret gathering! It will be meeting in England in late January, through the first few days of February (I do not have the exact dates with me, but it is something like Jan. 24th through Feb. 3).  The Chair of the Group is Abp. Drexel Gomez, and one can and should have complete confidence in his leadership here (I say that to more liberal folks as well:  he is a fair, honest, and faithful Christian).  The list of names on the Design Group, I believe, are also available at the ACO website. 

I do not minimize the challenges in this.  But what what service for Christ and His Church is without challenge, and indeed without seeming aid apart from God’s grace?  I appreciate Jill’s call to prayer for this element in our common life, and join her in extending it.

If people do indeed take time to examine this, discuss it, and offer suggestions, remember also that “compromise” is not a dirty word in the Christian faith, if it is properly understood in terms of drawing people to the truth, through various means of integrity, rather than unnecessarily driving them away.  The key terms are “integrity” and “necessity”.

I do not necessarily agree with Br-r Rabbit that such a covenant would necessarily mean a covenant rather than Canterbury centerered communion unless one of the NECESSARY colararies to not being a constituent member of the Covenant communion would be no participation in the councils of communion, somehow removing the ABC from the position of cheif invitation giver…to do that would, I think, require something of a dismantling of the IU’s that the covenant is centered upon.

If however, some way could be found to remove through the covenant Canterbury from the center of the Communion I would certainly be for it.

Matt, you seem to have laid out several examples of why Lambeth attendance is imperative. If the game is still afoot and the possibilities that you, Sarah, and Dr. Radner have described are still in play, is there not an obligation for the orthodox to endeavor to bring these things about? Don’t these possibilities simply dwarf even the best possible outcomes of every HOB, GC and Primates Meeting to date?

Be still my heart, that the three of you may have agreed upon such a thing on the first of this new year…

: )

And, by the way, I agree with you that the question of invitations must be addressed. I suspect ++Williams would very much be in favor of revisiting this as well. It doesn’t seem to me that Lambeth invitations were ever conceived as anything more than a pleasant formality rather than the controversial instrument they have become. It makes sense that once a Covenant is in place, the ABC would submit to the idea that invitations may only be extended to bishops within Covenant-compliant provinces. This of course would need to be formalized within the Covenant, and perhaps would become part of the Covenant’s adjudicatory mechanism?

Dear friends,
I just want to interject here that there are a significant number of the Reappraisers who are willing to make affirmations they do not believe. This was explained by Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes in her <a > interview in the June 2007 Episcopal Voice</a> :

“The affirmations are tough for any Christian who is at all progressive because there are certain of us {Christians} who have taken these and made them in to something like fraternity hazing—you have to say these words in order to be part of the club.

Conclusion—Affirming the Covenant could be treated as another “fraternity hazing” where they will do and say anything to get into the club. The Covenant needs to have enforcement of actual behavior as well as required affirmations.

As Clark Kerr explained in his book on the creation of the University of California system, the loyalty oath would not eliminate those who were truly dedicated to infiltrate and over throw the system because they would take it although they did not mean it.

BTW, here’s the links Dr. Radner was referring to:

The Anglican Covenant section of the ACO website:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/index.cfm

And the text of the draft:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/report/draft_text.cfm

I write the above because it is precisely the fair, honest and faithful who have the most difficulty accepting that we are not necessarily dealing with people of integrity, whatever they may name their organizations. Therefore, trust, but verify.

108 “Matt, you seem to have laid out several examples of why Lambeth attendance is imperative. If the game is still afoot and the possibilities that you, Sarah, and Dr. Radner have described are still in play, is there not an obligation for the orthodox to endeavor to bring these things about? Don’t these possibilities simply dwarf even the best possible outcomes of every HOB, GC and Primates Meeting to date?”

If you really believe it crucial that key orthodox primates attend Lambeth please pray seriously because there is pretty well no possibility at present

Sarah,
Is there any way you could assemble, edit and rework your scenarios into an article we could read?

Oh, you just did!

Everyone, please note that Bp. Venables just posted a significant comment here, #114 above.

My rather obvious point is that even if Lambeth provides the opportunity for the Covenant debate you are discussing, unless something significant happens to change things there will be important absences. Hence my request for serious prayer.

I have not been encouraged to look forward to Lambeth because I do not believe that anything substantive will actually come out of the meeting and feel that we have waited long enough, but despite the fact that I may decide to remove myself from TEC prior to Lambeth I do still have an interest in the outcome and I am not sufficiently informed to understand what the reasserter - reappraiser balance might look like with the current absences calculated in…does anyone have an estimate, however imprecise as to what the voting numbers might look like?

It’s not just about figures, it’s about who is prepared to speak up and who knows how to in that kind of meeting.

Gregory, I would certainly agree that it is about knowing how to speak up in that kind of a meeting…something we orthodox have been spectacularly lacking in of late…my own expertise is in Cold War foreign policy…using wisdom of the world in a war of public relations, image, and political manipulations…I wish that I had pursued the religious life and spiritual wisdom instead, but the reappraisers have been masterly at manipulating the system and are completely prepared to do so this time at Lambeth…we orthodox have no game plan that seems likely to succeed on that worldly level…I have great admiration for the spiritual wisdom surrounding attempts to build a covenant, but I fear that those who have worked on an outside strategy have a better grasp of the realities of worldly nature of the decision making process that has been going on and is likely to continue at Lambeth…

Praise the Lord for the presence here of ++Gregory!  Yes, my husband and I do pray for a great orthodox witness at Lambeth; thank you so much for your SF involvement, your advice, and your faithful protection of many Anglican Christians in the United States who are clinging to the Anglican Communion through the Southern Cone.

I worked long and hard at specific suggestions at the covenant draft posts, particular #6, but am stymied by the very nature of the covenant, and the structure in which it is being considered and adopted.  I am thus posting here, and not after the draft sections, so as not to violate the instructions.

I would fully expect TEC to be able to sign on to something along the lines of what has been published so far. 

The covenant establishes a framework for future Windseresque dialogue, i.e., has TEC “chosen not to fulfill the substance of the covenant?”, and if so, “what should be the “process of restoration and renewal”?  As I count up the years needed for future negotiation, adoption and ratification of the covenant and then the application of the covenant to TEC’s innovations, I see ten years, minimum.  Then what?

To quote Yogi Berra, it will be déjà vue all over again if Canterbury is given discretion to determine participation in one of the Instruments-Lambeth.  The type of structural changes needed to give the covenant the teeth and efficiency, necessary to deal with the current situation in our lifetimes are the very changes that would make it impossible to get out of committee, much less adopted.

The real significance of the current debate is whether the orthodox leadership, particularly in the Global South, will be convinced to buy into the covenant consideration/adoption process (there is that “process” word again) and be diverted from the real work at hand. 

Several Primates has said clearly and repeatedly what is needed for Lambeth participation (See: “The Road to Lambeth”). Their requests were not not unreasonable and were set out long before Lambeth details were finalized.  The ABC essentially rejected their requests, peremptorily inviting all but one of the TEC Bishops and endorsing TEC’s “substantially compliant” response. 

Now it is argued that these Primates should attend because another process, the covenant process,  might be advanced.

The greatest gift of the GS Primates to the American church is integrity. Many of us feel we can count on their word because it is usually based on their prayerful discernment of God’s Word.  Revisionist detractors scoff at this idea, arguing that many of the GS leaders are corrupt, tribalistic, unsophisticated, homophobic hypocrites.  To change course at this stage would come at a great cost.

I hope they hold firm, and that other Primates and Bishops stand with them.

I will continue to pray that the ABC changes course.

Johnp - my experience in Primates’ meetings initially was that the liberal agenda seemed to (I’m choosing my words very carefully)
depend on the principle of good taste (ie noone would be so crass as to state the obvious etc) and their enormous advantage of
working within a western style agenda-driven system of meetings.
Paula - God bless you! Keep praying!

++Gregory,  it has appeared to me that the liberals have honed their techniques well during the turbulent 60s…civil rights, war protests, women’s rights, abortion rights, gay rights…they have tremendous expertise at wielding these skills in image creation, public relations manipulation and agenda manipulation…worldly skills that would include deception, misdirection and the simple principle of taking advantage of the spiritual language and thinking of the orthodox to push their agenda…the internet and blogs seem to have thrown them a temporary setback because they have greater difficulty controlling the flow of information…but our own inability to take advantage of modern communication techniques to speed up decision-making, strategic thinking, and coordinated action combined with the seemingly infinite alternate choices denominationally have created an environment that makes comparison to the medieval period of church councils as a model seem…well medieval.  Our spiritual leaders seem ill-equipped to do battle in this environment…which makes to seem more desirable to simply take our spiritual thinking and start over…as they did at the first council of Jerusalem, when the apostles, trained by Christ himself, abandoned the hopelessly structurally deficient Jewish system for what became the new religion of Christianity.  Of course, if we were to accept that these conditions are similar to those faced at that time, and I am sure that you do not, we would still be in need of instruments of unity, covenants and hopefully we would consider our own failings in attempting to design something with a greater possibility of success than our current system seems to provide.

johnp - The arena you rightly describe where the drama is being played out is not the environment of most of the orthodox leaders and having given much time and energy to the debate and seen how little things have changed they are now getting on with the mission of the church where they are. Hence the silence from several for some months now and the planning of the conference in the Middle East next June. Lambeth is no longer a priority whereas the gospel is. Canterbury and the western leadership believe we still are part of one body and just need to find out how to live with that and that’s why there is talk of professionally facilitated dialogue.

Bishop Gregory has asked our prayers for the Communion and the attendance of all our bishops at Lambeth.  Dr. Radner has asked for our input and suggestions for strengthening the Covenant.  It seems incumbent upon us to do all we can to fulfill these requests.  For years we have complained that we have been shut out of the workings of TEC and the AC.  We now have open invitations.  Praying for success seems more constructive than predicting failure.

Bishop Gregory has asked our prayers for the Communion and the attendance of all our bishops at Lambeth.  Dr. Radner has asked for our input and suggestions for strengthening the Covenant.  It seems incumbent upon us to do all we can to fulfill these requests.  For years we have complained that we have been shut out of the workings of TEC and the AC.  We now have open invitations.  Praying for success seems more constructive than predicting failure.

tjmcmahon, I’ve just posted basically the same call over at Covenant (apparently around the same time Sarah was crafting her series). It’s my hope that this blog activity may help at least focus the prayers and guide the discussion in an irenic and productive direction. The hour, as Bobby Zimmerman would say, is getting late.

++Gregory, I appreciate the efforts that each of you have made on behalf of the orthodox here in America…I can’t imagine that professionally facilitated dialogue will do anything except get both sides to admit that the issues are irreconcilable…I wish I knew what we should do at the parish level…we are orthodox, but we are not of one mind about whether the inside or outside strategy is the right one…

johnp - which is why we have made such an effort to provide alternatives for the moment.
But don’t be under any illusion, the liberal agenda is after the communion franchise and since, as I said above, the western leadership believes we are part of the same body albeit in disagreement, they are well on the way to gaining it especially given that the non western leadership has pretty well given up on Lambeth and is concentrating on the mission.

...especially given that the non western leadership has pretty well given up on Lambeth and is concentrating on the mission.

The question then, it seems to me, is whether GAFCON is an expression of this sentiment (abandonment of Lambeth)? I for one tire of the ambiguity. We asked for clarity from the left at GC, but it seems we cannot give it to one another.

tjmcmahon,

I had not noticed Bishop Venables asking “the attendance of all our bishops at Lambeth”.  What I heard him say was this:

“If you really believe it crucial that key orthodox primates attend Lambeth please pray seriously because there is pretty well no possibility at present”

Bishop Venables, are there any circumstances under which you would not attend Lambeth—and if so, how might those circumstances change over the coming seven months?

GALFON is not an abandonment of Lambeth.
It allows for both sides and those perhaps still undecided.
But yes, some have clearly given up on Lambeth, hence the request for prayer.

David and tjmcmahon,

I don’t know that I would characterize ++Venable’s statements as a call for all bishops to attend Lambeth. He said, rather, that if you believe that this is necessary in order to move the communion in the right direction, then pray that hearts and minds will be changed.

I hate to dampen David’s enthusiasm but I do not think that my comments represent an implicit advocacy for Lambeth attendance. I continue to maintain the position that TEC’s attendance at Canterbury would essentially end any hope of final discipline until 2018 even if a very strong covenant is passed and ratified. Unless and until something is done about the power of invitation, TEC will retain a legitimate claim to membership until such time as they are disinvited to the councils of the communion by the ABC.

Since they have been invited to this council, then it is already a loss and defeat. TEC remains a full constituent member until the next council. Nothing that occurs there can change that except perhaps a Canterbury sanctioned expulsion (a majority of bishops is not enough, it must be canterbury and since he has already made his decision with regard to Lambeth there is little or no chance of that happening).

So, no I do not think it imperative to be at Lambeth. As ++Venables said, Lambeth is no longer the priority. It is good if your bishops go. It is good if they do not. I hope most GS bishops do not go for reasons expressed above, but I know that many will.

Dearest Father in Christ, ++Venables,

You have no idea what you have done today, I for one am no longer “drowning” in the seemingly insoluble “ring around the rosie” going on prior to your arrival on the scene. 

It seems no one wants to hear my posting (#107), that we simply have very little time to deal with any of this.  It may be unfortunate that there is so little time, because with more time, it could be that TEC would sink itself.

So few of our leaders seem to care much about the people who are being hurt, led astray, children being raised to believe just about anything (except salvation), I find this positively horrifying. 

You and the other faithful, caring, Gospel-preaching Primates are truly gifts from God to a suffering church.

The truly sad thing is that the “modernists” do NOT care one whit. All they are upset about (on the various blogs and lists) are the properties. And if continued membership in the Anglican Communion means anything at all, its just the ability to claim it, thereby being granted some respectablitiy and perceived affirmation of their words and deeds.

Thank you (and your brothers) for assisting us in our time of trouble.
We pray for you all daily, that God will provide protection for you as you spread your arms open wide to receive the refugees from TEC.

God Bless you, and keep you, and make his grace to shine upon you, and hopefully give you peace.

Blessings in all you do,
Grannie Gloria
(not quite yet a “physical refugee) I am in South Carolina, but the time will surely come.

Thanks Fr Matt.
That’s exactly it!

I hate to dampen David’s enthusiasm but I do not think that my comments represent an implicit advocacy for Lambeth attendance.

I didn’t say you had advocated attendance, merely that your expressed wishes for a possible Covenant illustrated the importance and indeed imperative that the orthodox attend. It does no good to say, “attend or not, either is good,” because that is a de facto abandonment of Lambeth, since any results favorable to the orthodox would require near perfect attendance and focussed energy.

It may well be that the Covenant you desire will and would not be drafted. But there is no benefit in not finding out. I said to Sarah earlier it was like saying the Patriots are favored to win the Superbowl, so why have it?

If it’s a lost cause, it’s a lost cause, but I think even your comments of late show several possible ways in which it is not.

Nothing that occurs there can change that except perhaps a Canterbury sanctioned expulsion (a majority of bishops is not enough, it must be canterbury and since he has already made his decision with regard to Lambeth there is little or no chance of that happening).

See, it’s these exceptions that you keep throwing out that make me scratch my head. If these are the elements of a Covenant that would be acceptable, why not fight for them?

And if not a Canterbury-sanctioned exclusion, why not a Covenant that provided for such discipline in short time-frame after Lambeth? Is this not a possibility, given a focussed and perfect attendance? I don’t think anyone can say an unqualified “no” to that.

RE: “Thanks Fr Matt.
That’s exactly it!”

Bishop Venables praises Matt—but I was the first by a full minute to clarify Bishop Venable’s statement.  And yet . . . Matt receives the praise!

Is this the patriarchy at work?  Or . . . is it clericalism?

[sniff, toss head!]

Signed,

Affirming, Inclusive Dolphin

Right on, Sarah.
You were there! And thanks for all you’re doing.

Matt and Sarah,
If I have misinterpreted or misrepresented ++Venables, then I do beg his forgiveness, and yours.  I will not argue the point, any further interpretation on my part would be arrogant of me, since the good bishop has been participating in this thread.

Please do not take my remarks to be a judgment of GS or other bishops who choose not to attend Lambeth.  The onus for this situation lies with TEC and others who precipitated the crisis, and with the ABoC due to his issuing invitations to bishops who should have been subject to discipline.

Picking up on your question, Sarah - I just saw it, having several grandchildren climping over me and the laptop here in very hot and humid BA - I am, so far, not going but I’ll listen to any of you who want to help me think it through some more.

Sarah, don’t you have a roast in the oven or something? Why don’t you just run along now and let the men talk?

That’s ““climbing for those who think “climping” is some quaint Argentine custom

++Venables says (don’t you just love the blogosphere) -
If you really believe it crucial that key orthodox primates attend Lambeth please pray seriously because there is pretty well no possibility at present

How very sad.  I will pray indeed, Archbishop. For you and all your fellow Primates & bishops.

. . . thy will be done . . .

Peace,

P.S. Fr. Matt: With that last line to Sarah, I’ll pray for you too.  I fear you’ll need it.

Sarah, don’t you have a roast in the oven or something? Why don’t you just run along now and let the men talk?

For some reason I’m reminded that dolphins were trained to blow up boats during WWII.

One clear point that appears in this thread is that if the Communion is to remain more or less intact, one absolute requirement is a strong Covenant.  (This by itself may not be sufficient, but without it disintegration is inevitable.)

Another point that appears—at least to me—clear from the last decade of increasingly sharp wrangling in the Communion over TEC’s ruthless enthusiasm for heresy is that without the participation of a firm and united Global South, the outcome of Lambeth ‘98,  Dromantine, DeS, and indeed the Windsor Report itself would have been much worse from our point of view.  It’s also clear that without the strong pull of provinces like Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya combined with the respected and reasoned voices of such as the West Indies and South Asia, now joined by the Middle East, neither Lambeth ‘98 nor the Primates as a body would have reached the consensus they have consistently shown (which accounts for the ACO’s terror at the prospect of a pre-Lambeth Primates’ Meeting, if there were any doubt).

This is why the <a >casual dismissal</a> of Dr+ Poon’s original post (and the topic of this thread) is ill-advised (would one complain about the squawk of a coal-mine canary when it’s about to expire?), and finger-pointing (“Poon shouldn’t have gone public!”  “The GAFCon announcement was arrogantly phrased” and so on) is at this point an unproductive waste of bandwidth. 

The Main Thing politically is still to get TEC ejected from the Communion.  The ABC has been quite clear and consistent in maintaining that he will not do this unilaterally, and that he intends for TEC to “include itself out” by rejection of the (eventual) Covenant.  That’s the reality of the situation; yells of frustration or condemnation, however theraputic, will not change it.  (As to TEC’s accepting the Covenant and then ignoring it, of course that’s a possibility but by no means a sure thing: look at GC06’s overwhelming rejection of even the most carefully weasel-worded “Windsor-compliance” resolutions, and the acrimony afterwards over the steamrollering of B033.  GC09 is unlikely to be more sweetly moderate and less fiercely protective of The Cause than ‘06.)

Even for those looking to separate from Canterbury, TEC’s ejection is—or should be—an important goal, if only because of the effect it would have on the US courtroom situation.  And recall that in the ABC’s original discussion of the Covenant, there was no “Full Membership”—“Associate Membership” distinction, there was only Membership—Just Friends; his example of “Just Friends” was the Methodists: historically but not ecclesiologically connected.

So I’m very happy to see the GAFCon contingent starting to mend fences, and I’m taking <a >Gregory’s advice</a> to pray seriously that those planning to boycott Lambeth will have a change of heart.  The stakes are simply <a >too high</a> to cheerfully wander off, even into what would presumably become the largest and most prestigious piece of the Continuum.

I agree with, for lack of a better phrase, Dave Sims’s previous assessment of +++RW’s personality in that the latter wants to do(probably) everything possible to avoid looking like a pope; right, wrong, or indifferent. 

Like it or not, I think what we’ve got here is a leader who wants any discipline or “expulsion” to be the mind of the Communion, rather than just the mind of one individual. 

Dave says:

“It does no good to say, “attend or not, either is good,” because that is a de facto abandonment of Lambeth, since any results favorable to the orthodox would require near perfect attendance and focused energy”.

That’s absolutely true—while I understand both the principle and pessimism of thinking that Lambeth attendance would be a “lost cause” or “waste of time”, NOT attending, at least THIS COMING Lambeth, gives away the farm to the revisionists, pretty much wrapped in lovely paper with a satin bow. 

If I were an Anglican bishop or primate, that’s not what I would do, and it’s also why I’m glad that +Jim Stanton is my bishop. 

Food for thought…

Craig, it’s not a case of walking off cheerfully - that is no way the case and a mockery of the heartsearching that has gone on. It’s just that there is no more trust in the Anglican system.

Bless you, Craig Goodrich, for that most recent post of yours.

Looking through the Draft Covenant, it is a bloated mess. It seems packed with language time bombs, like the 1979 BCP. We, the orthodox, need to have our own proposal, a clear and simple document.

When I used to work with contracts, it was always a mistake to let the other side create the contract and then try to react to their creation. It is better to create what you want and let them react.

Dear Archbishop Venables,
I must admit I am one of those who did not believe any of the orthodox should attend Lambeth, however, recent events have me sitting on the fence.  There are the obvious reasons - as set forth very clearly by Matt - for not attending but then - if there are none there to speak for the orthodox are we then not surrendering the Communion to those who would see it abandon the Authority of Scripture?  Are we not turning our backs on an important history lesson?  Isn’t this how ECUSA has become what it is today?
Truly only God knows and I pray that He fills you and all those who would do His will with his wisdom, courage and grace.  Please know you and all the primates will remain in my prayers.
Jackie Bruchi

There have been many attempts to correctly characterize the methodology of the “liberal revisionists” and that impact into the Lambeth process, several very successful in recognizing the model. You cannot be too careful and not fail to recognize that the revisionist mode of operation is to say whatever is necessary to say, no matter how unpalatable it is at the moment, and then do “what thou wilt”. This causes great confusion for the parishioners on the center aisle because they hear the revisionists “saying the right thing” and then, unless they happen to stumble across them accidentally, never really “catch” them doing the other. Thus they are then vulnerable to the revisionists saying - “well see, you can’t believe those others - they are reactionary, backward, non-progressive, tribal, “them”, “those people”,” and other derogatory labels. Because they are operating within our belief system, centrists are inherently vulnerable here. The same skepticism that they bring to the world at large is (largely) parked in the coatroom in church. I actually celebrate the brutal honesty of Integrity because they speak plainly of their agenda, are openly critical of those who oppose them, and don’t waste time couching their agenda behind vaporous language.

As someone who has been in a minority conservative, growing parish in a subsiding liberal diocese, I am acutely aware of this impact within our parish. The orthodox have been so concerned with ministry, with upholding the faith once given, that the polity has literally been pulled out from underneath us. We received assurances from our revisionist peers that all is well, that “we will not pursue the revisionist agenda until everyone agrees”. We took them at their word, assuming that they were like us, and that they meant what they said, and said what they meant. They were not, are not and do not. It is no simpler than that. Unless the Covenant has the means of consent nailed, glued and concreted down tight , the revisionists will merely pry it up and then claim it was never nailed down.

My years of studying human organizations make me very pessimistic about the effectiveness of Lambeth - certainly in the short-term, and probably in the long-term as well. This organization - if expressed in graphic and secular terms - has a bad case of gangrene. And I do not use this example lightly. From a thoroughly pragmatic perspective, the the power structure (leadership) of TEC is completely entrenched and commited to the path they have set before them. They have demonstrated a disregard for any polity except their own, declared their freedom from influence by the Anglican Communion Instruments and any directorship of the Archbishop. And they have demonstrated that they are willing to do whatever it takes to advance their agenda against any and all of the rest of the Anglican Communion, any Covenant notwithstanding.

My skin in this game is by comparison to many of you very light - I came to the Episcopal Church from Lutheran roots by way of my marriage. I became a leader because that is what the Lord required of me - not because I was raised into this organization as a cradler, nor because I have joined in the apostolic succession. But as a secular professional whose background in organizational behavior is very deep, I am torn between my professional views on the state of things and my desire to see God work a magnificent miracle in removing the dross and refining his Bride. Either way - I serve my parish and my brothers and sisters in Christ as God calls me so to do. And pray. Oh man do I pray. May God work mightily at Lambeth, at GAFCON, within our own structures of orthodoxy and revision, open the eyes of those yet slumbering, and speak plainly to those yet confused or unknowing. May He bring His clarity to our work, His grace to our relationships and His strength to our efforts, knowing that we have so little to offer of our own clarity, grace and strength.

With respect, how many people go to work every single day even though they may not have trust in the system in which they’re working?

Thank you, too, Jackie, and this peon seconds your thoughts and prayers.

I agree that we absolutely need all of our orthodox Primates in order to prevail at Lambeth.  I hope the African primates will hear a call from God to help us at this conference despite their present intention not to attend.  Those who may not be there include our most powerful and effective people.  And look what happened when the strongest orthodox bishops left New Orelans early!

Jackie - Sadly, for a significant number the decision has already been made for the reasons I have sought to share and which is why I asked for prayer because I believe it is still worth asking what you said. But the absence of trust in the Communion is the fruit of our experience. Also, the consciousness that this is a western driven agenda which is paternalistic and has little if any understanding of other cultural styles.

“Also, the consciousness that this is a western driven agenda which is paternalistic and has little if any understanding of other cultural styles”.

Not to mention, to be blunt, it also has little if any REGARD for other cultural styles, despite all of its bluster regarding social justice and “inclusion”. 

All the more reason, possibly just this once, to SHOW UP AND FIGHT…

I’ll grant that we had a much different AB of C at the time, but would Lambeth 1.10 have happened if all the traditionals had stayed home in ‘98?

There were those who warned since 2003 that, like an army on high alert, the great dedication of resources and attention on the part of the GS leadership to the US/Canadian struggle could not be maintained over an extended period of time. There is no question it has diverted attention from other issues in their provinces, a reality that was pointed out in recent conferences.  Every American church under a GS leader understands that reality. 

The establishment of a new Anglican Church in the US is an urgent task.

Our dear brother ++Gregory was joined by 9 other Primates (or reps) in Nairobi in August to lay hands on two new Kenyan bishops.  The ABC has simply ignored that event (and that important statement by those Primates) and not invited the new bishops from Kenya and Uganda, as well as CANA and AMiA bishops.  If TEC is to be invited and the others get a thumbs down, why should any of those Primates or their bishops attend Lambeth?

I fully support your thinking, Archbishop, in not being a part of what is a sham, as Matt has so eloquently explained.

I’ll grant that we had a much different AB of C at the time, but would Lambeth 1.10 have happened if all the traditionals had stayed home in ‘98?

Geek, I think that it is safe to say that if the passing of Lambeth 1.10 had meant anything to the Communion’s powers-that-be, the orthodox bishops would be going to Lambeth.  That a couple churches within the Communion have been able to violate 1.10 with impunity has caused the situation we are now in.

Geek - the problem is there have been too many ” just this once” occasions.

Matt—I hope that you noticed this comment from Bishop Venables.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8802/#165287

That a couple churches within the Communion have been able to violate 1.10 with impunity has caused the situation we are now in.

This sentiment ignores the whole thrust of Challenge and Hope and the Windsor Report itself. The fact is there is no mechanism in the Communion under which this “impunity” can be judged. Some have lamented that invitations to Lambeth have not been wielded as a supplement to this vacuum of disciplinary structure, but I think there are many good reasons why the ABC has resisted doing this. Lambeth 08 has always been the endpoint, the place where the structural deficiencies could be remedied. Why abandon the Windsor Process this close to the finish line? Lambeth is not just “one more meeting,” but is in fact the one meeting that all of these lesser meetings have been anticipating.

Dear Bishop Venables,

I too am struggling with the “go-to-Lambeth” decision.

Here is my long-term question.

1) Not going to Lambeth pretty much surrenders the Anglican Communion to the forces of the progressive activist agenda.

2) So—as a “Communion”—the Anglican Communion will be no more—or at least, will be a “Communion” eventually of Canada, the US, Brazil, Wales, and some other minor-league provinces, along with presumably the COE.

3) Therefore—essentially the announcement by various Primates of not going to Lambeth is basically an announcement of surrender of the Anglican Communion [as it is formally and legally constituted].

Question: Assuming that that boycott state stands, will those Primates that do not go to Lambeth also formally announce after Lambeth, in the event of non-discipline, an official departure from the Anglican Communion and an official entrance into a new Anglican entity of whatever name and identity?

The reason why I ask that question is because it seems to me that that is the only honorable course for those who will not be fighting at Lambeth.  There needs to be a formal closure and announcement of cessation of membership in the communion.  When people don’t participate in the councils of the particular body of which they are members, it seems only honorable to announce a “moving on”.

The alternative is just 1) not participating, 2) not showing up to fight, 3) watching the communion continue its decline, and 4) yet, hanging around and criticizing the formal, legal entity in which one is not participating.

I ask the above not as a critique of not going to Lambeth, but simply a working through in my own mind of all that not going really seems to signify.

Matt—it also seems clear that Dave Sims has your interests at heart and is a True Friend:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8802/#165299

Bp. Venables,

If you can address this, is there any action that could be taken at this point by the Archbishop of Canterbury or others that would change the minds of those who have decided not to attend Lambeth?

Amen Sarah.

Or, at least those choosing to absent themselves should state under what conditions, if any, they will return to full participation in the instruments of communion. 

Peace,

P.S. Believe in and pray for miracles.

I apologize to <a >++Venables</a> for any offense caused by my choice of words.  And I agree that at this point the apparent discrepancy between words and actions coming from Canterbury might well be destructive of the mutual trust that has held the Communion together for more than a century.

And of course it is little short of obscene that bishops working ceaselessly to promulgate the Gospel in an environment of pervasive poverty, violence, hostility, and official corruption should be expected to waste an inordinate amount of time (and other resources) dealing with the utterly ludicrous and disgusting apostasy of a tiny overprivileged church in an immensely rich society, especially in the face of an unsympathetic Communion bureaucracy.

But I will nonetheless continue to pray that they attend the coming Lambeth to participate in rebuilding a Communion worthy of their trust.  As I have said, the stakes are extremely high—perhaps higher than some of the bishops themselves may realize.

Sarah.
There is a disillusionment with the system and Canterbury, born of experience and intrerpreted as betrayal and a not very subtle paternalism.
Therefore several have decided that it’s no longer worth going down that road. There is no alternative plan other than the discerning of God’s will. Neither is there a group identity other than being brethren (or whatever that is in politically correct language) either to make this decision or to act together afterwards. The Global South has no defined membership. Yet being God’s people we know he is guiding us even if we have no real sense of what that might mean in the future. Part of our problem has been to do with well-intentioned westerners trying to help us with a western agenda.

Craig. No offence whatsoever.
It’s good to straighttalk. Keep praying.
We’re listening.

Mark McCall.
Little is expected from that quarter since so far it’s been disappointing.
There is no more trust, a sense of betrayal and a sadness at the paternalistic tone to everything.

David,

I disagree with regard to what the ABC could have done up to this point. It was clear, coming out of Tanzania, that if the HOB decided not to “clarify” her position in a satisfactory manner, that her attendance at Lambeth would be in question. There were two processes coming out of Dromantine: 1. the process of discipline and 2. the process of covenant creation.

There was a push from the beginning to collapse the two into one, a push that the orthodox GS primates resisted from the beginning. The standards of the WR as accepted and amended by the primates and accepted at Nottingham by the ACC were the standards by which communion discipline could be exercised. The request that TEC absent her delegates from the ACC meeting seemed to set a precedent for the sort of discipline threatened if TEC did not mend her ways prior to Lambeth at either Gencon06 or subsequently through an action of the House of Bishops.

That was precisely what was in view at Tanzania.

So when the invitations went out and it became clear after the HOB meeting that they would not be withdrawn and that no primates meeting would be held it was a true betrayal of the first process of discipline…an abdication of sorts.

It would not have been a papal power grab to deny invitations since the denial would have been based on the standard set at Lambeth98, a clear history of primatial decisions from 2003 on, a meeting of the ACC ratifying Dromantine, and the precedent set at Nottingham, and the Dar communique which at the very least would have permitted a primatial meeting subsequent to the HOB meeting in NO for the very purposes of deciding the question of invitations.

If the ABC was worried about unilateral decision making, in other words, there were plenty of ways to avoid both the appearance and the actual setting of precendence.

Perhaps having several good reasons not to attend Lambeth is exactly why all orthodox bishops should attend. The Nigerian House of Bishops feels that they should not attend because (among other reasons, I know) one of their number has not been invited. Perhaps this is why they should go—heads held high, in the power of the Spirit.

David Sims says “Why abandon the Windsor Process this close to the finish line? Lambeth is not just ‘one more meeting,’ but is in fact the one meeting that all of these lesser meetings have been anticipating.” If, as he says, “Lambeth 08 has always been the endpoint,” are we, the orthodox, prepared to make this abundantly clear? Can CCP, ACI, GS, and other orthodox camps sing this tune in harmony, in effect, putting the rest of the Communion on notice?

I could say more, but I’d rather pause here and see what others think, assuming (or presuming?) that the ideas here are worth interacting with.

Peace.

Will

Jackie.
I know of several.

Sorry if I seem to be “going back and forth” but I am trying to work through what is becoming evident here.  Given that it appears that all the bishops of TEC (other than maybe VGR) will be invited regardless of previous indications otherwise, we cannot be surprised if bishops who are not in communion with TEC refuse to enter into council with them.  And I do not think it is right for those of us who are not familiar with the processes to assume that the orthodox bishops can “take over” and force their will upon Lambeth.  I may not like the outcome that appears most likely (that many bishops will boycott Lambeth), but the people making that decision are much better equipped than I am to make the decision.
  In the end, the survival of the Anglican Communion as currently constituted is a moot point (apologies to Moot).  All that matters is the survival of the one catholic and apostolic Church.  We will have to pray for and trust in the discernment of the orthodox bishops and that the Holy Spirit will guide them in the direction the Lord intends.

What to do?  Cut off the offending limb? Seek the lost sheep? Challenge your brother’s sinfulness? Forgive 77 or 70 x 7? 

Pray for discernment.  That is certain.

Matt 11:7-22 [NIV]

7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Peace,

Bishop Venables,

I appreciate your response.  I certainly understand various Primates with their provinces not attending Lambeth and I have not advocated for their attendance.

I guess what I am struggling with though is the idea of firmly allowing the legal formal structure of the Communion to move on into apostasy, without at the same time “resigning one’s commission.”

It just doesn’t seem kosher to no longer participate in the Communion without formally resigning one’s membership.

But then . . . I am not a Primate and am fortunate enough not to have to make these decisions.

Having observed the complete meltdown of the group formerly known as Windsor Bishops at the HOB meeting in New Orleans with the lack of any leadership once the outspoken and strategic bishops left for Common Cause, I have little hope that those who attend Lambeth will be the strategic, articulate leaders that those who do not attend are.

My heart goes out to you.

#177 - Miserable Sinner…we do forgive, but Scripture tells the Church to put the unrepentant out of the flock until he repent.  The unrepentant should not lead, preach or govern the Church or be a blemish at the Love Feast. 

We are told not to tolerate Jezebel, Baal, Molech.
Numbers 33:55 says if we leave the Caananites in the land, they will be thorns in our sides and barbs in our eyes and God will deal with us as He will them.

Re #177 and #179
We are called to forgive those who repent and indicate an intention to change their ways.
We are also given a procedure for dealing with those who do not admit fault and repent.
And we are given a distinction between lost sheep and false teachers.
It is absurd for false teachers who do not repent to claim the status of lost sheep or of brothers in Christ who have asked for forgiveness.

Archbishop Gregory and others:

I would like to add my voice to those encouraging and praying for all orthodox bishops to attend Lambeth.  I do not dispute anything of what you say regarding paternalism, the western agenda, etc.  But I would hope that you all remember these points:

1) look to the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury and not just the current incumbent.  Remember what part of the Communion is growing and what part is shrinking.  Remember that without its heaps of money, TEC would have no influence at all.  Realize that TEC’s supply of money - especially in light of a protracted litigation fight - will not be endless.

2. I think that Craig Goodrich has made some fantastic points.  It is critical NOT to let the liberals have “the franchise”, even if you think that “the franchise” is not critical for the spread of the Gospel.  Those opposed to the Gospel clearly see “the franchise” as critical to their success, and that is reason enough to contest for it.  Denying the liberals “the franchise” will serve to undercut their influence more quickly as their litigating will be from a weaker position.

3. I do not believe that the time is yet come to abandon the Communion.  And I agree with Sarah above that not attending Lambeth and effectively turning “the franchise” over to the liberals is abandoning the Communion.  That time may come, but I think it would be a better thing to caucus amongst the GS leadership to develop a multi-layered strategy.  One part of it surely is spreading the Gospel whatever else the Communion might say.  But another part surely must be to deny the victory to the liberals in their desire to take over the Communion, and wait on God’s time to take back the Communion.

Sarah.
Thanks for your thoughtful response and your prayers.
There is no desire to resign membership of the Anglican Communion or to walk away but simply a sense that Lambeth will be more of the same and therefore not worthwhile. Non attendance at Lambeth cannot be taken as resigning.
I share your pain re the implications but it will be difficult to change the decision, which was taken long before all the recent things had been written or said.

Jamesw.
Thank you too.
Pray for us.

This post brings to mind a question.  What if there were a commitment from the ABC to firmly engage the issues at hand?  Would this make a difference?

Some here are placing more emphasis on attending Lambeth than is warranted.  It does not define who is a bishop and who isn’t.  Are Mims, Murphy, Atwood etc less a bishop because they were not invited?  Even the ABC said early on that Lambeth is not a decision making body of the Anglican Communion.

  Mindful of the speculation that has surrounded the issuing of invitations to the Conference Dr Williams recalls that invitations are issued on a personal basis by the Archbishop of Canterbury and that “the Lambeth Conference has no ‘constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal Synod or Council of the Communion”, and that invitation to the Conference has never been seen as “a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy”.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/3040

I looked at a few of the liberal blogs today. There is considerable effort to make and enlarge any possible cracks in the orthodox efforts, as if they are deviant from the mainline church and falling apart.

Every effort is needed to support GAFCON attendance, even if by telecommunication, establish specific outrages brought on by the progressive agenda, and specific action plans. If some bishops are unable to attend Lambeth, for whatever reason, it woud be extremely helpful to have their voices supportive of the planned actions and referenced at Lambeth. Since the liberals seek to show division within the orthodox, it is most important to define issues that all can find outrageous and achieve change on those matters.

It is futile to argue what is orthodox. Define what is outrageous and act in unity to stop those practices.

hanks,

Attendance at Lambeth, or, rather, an invitation to Lambeth or the other councils of the communion, does not determine your standing as a bishop. It does, however, determine your standing as a bishop in the Anglican Communion. If the ABC does not invite you to participate in the councils, then it is tantamount to non-recognition.

Some argue that we must attend in order to force certain issues to the fore. But these arguments, to my mind, ignore the fact that the most significant issue has already been decided. Non-Windsor bishops are currently and will have legitimate claim to be bishops in the Anglican communion for the next 10 years. There has been no discipline and there will effectively be none at least until Lambeth 2018.

Floridian & Deja Vu:

I’m not giving anyone a pass here.  Just praying for discernment by those entrusted with the power and responsibility. 

Did you see my post to Covenant part 5?  Not exactly handing anyone a bowlful of candy.  Also, see my prior posts calling Lambeth an invitation to ECUSA’s hanging.

That said, in my mind I do think Christian longsuffering calls for lasting longer than we’ve waited since GC 2003.  I’m certainly not saying 2018. But, what if it is now the darkest darkness before a new dawn?  What if that new dawn is Lambeth?  And isn’t this the little stone bridge site? 

Peace & new year’s wishes,

P.S. BTW, not all the verses I quoted called for forgiveness only after repentance.
P.S.S. Certainly Rev. Prof. Radner, Craig, jamesw and others have wonderfully articulated strong ComCon positions with which I concur and endorse.  I certainly don’t have a crystal ball, nor would I use one if one were handed to me. 
P.S.S.S. Certainly we all offer prayers for +Venables and all entrusted to guide the Anglican Communion through these shoals. May each of their steps be directed by the Holy Spirit and taken with the humility of Christ himself.

RE: “There is no desire to resign membership of the Anglican Communion or to walk away” . . .

I understand. 

It just seems to me that no longer participating in one of the four instruments of communion sort of require honorably and formally withdrawing.  Not participating seems sort of like a soldier announcing that he will not go to a particular battle for his country, or vote, or pay taxes, yet will still retain citizenship of that country.  It is certainly possible to do it—but it does not seem right to no longer participate yet retain membership.

Well—I guess I’ve asked the question enough.

Maybe a better question is . . . are there any actions at all that could take place at the Communion level that would allow you to be present, Bishop Venables?

Matt, I understand your point about non-recognition by Canterbury.  How does that square with 10 Primates having laid hands on the Kenyan bishops?  Can a non-invitation change that recognition?  And isn’t that part of the reason why Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda may not attend?

I assume that only a change of heart represented by positive action by the ABC would create such a change, but I could be mistaken…if the ABC has decided to call a bluff it appears that the tactic fails…on the other hand, it does seem to hand over the communion to the liberals and gives them a chance to solve the problem of their own making without the imput of the key orthodox players…many on the stay and fight side have insisted on the ABC’s good intentions, so now he will get to solve the problem using his own strategy, or destroy the communion based on his own actions without the complicity of the key orthodox leaders…

Sarah this looks more like a boycott of a Senate vote with a foregone conclusion attempting to point out its illegitimacy rather than a soldier refusing to fight…simply power politics from those who do not control the key levers of power…since the ABC has seemingly abandoned his neutral stance in favor of a decidedly liberal one…if there is no possibility of victory under the current circumstances then it looks like the only move that could alter the entrenched positions of those orthodox who have pinned all their hopes on Lambeth or on those moderates who are undecided…although I can’t understand why there would be any of those left at this point…

As they say, denial Is Not a River in Egypt.

A large segment of the GS is not attending Lambeth, regardless how any of us feel about it.  I realize some orthodox in the AC disagree with that decision, but that is the reality.  Many of those not attending have sacrificed greatly in this fight for the cause of Christ and many of our own churches in the US.  They have spent months dealing with problems outside of their provinces, and a few are exhausted.  For an African Primate, a trip to US or England results in a month’s work, in planning, travel time, jet lag and follow up.  They have clearly stated what would be required to justify a trip to Lambeth and the ABC, in his discretion, decided that was not to be.

Perhaps a more productive discussion would be this- what is the best strategy for those that would have desired full Lambeth attendance but now see that will not occur?  Under these circumstances it makes no sense to buck the ABC’s plan to avoid substantive discussions at Lambeth.  Let it be an expensive tea party. You can bet that most of the media attention will focus on the presence (in some capacity) of Bishop Robinson (according to his plans, by then a June Bride) and his partner.  Given these dynamics, the more people that join the boycott the better.

RE: “I assume that only a change of heart represented by positive action . . . “

Then I am asking about what positive actions it would take for Bishop Venables.  But he may be gone from this thread now . . .

It does appear that he has gone to play with the grandchildren, but it was a blessing to have him spend such time with us…and I will certainly be praying for him over the coming months…given what we have been given to think about today, how does this alter your thinking Sarah?

JohnP,

I am sorry but I cannot compare one of three Instruments of Communion which Primates may participate in—and that the one that meets only once every 10 years—to a single Senate vote. 

The comparison which springs to mind (thanks to your initial comparison) is a person being elected to the Senate and then later on announcing that he will cast no further votes in the Senate for the remainder of his term because it is an illegitimate body—yet not resigning from his Senate position.

Sarah

I posed that question almost in those exact terms in #167and he replied in #172.

Hi Mark—I know that he expects little.  I just wondered if the ABC suddenly experienced a massive change of character, personality, and heart, what he then could do in the form of specific actions.

Grandmother - I don’t own pointy shoes or a green suit but I am happy to get your post to the correct thread!

Don’t know where to post this, since I cannot access the “string” past #177, where the discussion is taking place.  The “elves” if available may post it there if they wish.  I just had an awful thought! 

If the Anglican Bishops who are providing oversight to our American dioceses and parishs do not attend Lambeth, something truly bad could happen.

KJS/Beers would like to charge priests and Bishops with “abandonment” of communion (ECUSA), but if for some reason a boycott of Lambeth was considered “resignation’ from Lambeth, it would distroy the argument that the folks are only “abandoning” TEC, NOT the Anglican Communion. 

There is lots of emphasis on “a constituent” member of the AC”, which helps the orthodox case, but a change in status of faithful bishops might at least cloud the issue.

Without the Primates membership and/or status in the Anglican Communion, I think there will be a great deal of ammunition ceded to the 815 cabal.

I sincerely hope someone smarter than me will think this thru.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but have had some time to think about it, and its a frightening scenario.

Grannie Gloria

[2] Posted by Grandmother on 01-01-2008 at 09:15 PM

“Canterbury and the western leadership believe we still are part of one body “

“There is no more trust.”

Fr. Matt says:
So when the invitations went out and it became clear after the HOB meeting that they would not be withdrawn and that no primates meeting would be held it was a true betrayal of the first process of discipline…an abdication of sorts.

Query - not necessarily only for Fr. Matt -
If one, here the AoC, honestly interpret the post HOB polling of the Primates as non-consensus, what is the AoC’s foundation for withdrawals of invitations?  Isn’t the default case upon non-consensus, to let the invitations stand?

Peace,

Actually Sarah, I think I will stick with my original Senate analogy, but place it in the context of being on the cusp of a nationwide election which will control the Congress and Presidency during a period where the balance of the Supreme Court could be changed for the remainder of our lifetimes should we lose.  We have heard all the debates, we can see that your longterm scenarios are correct…no matter what happens at Lambeth under the current conditions it will lead to ten more years of being in the minority position…we have played all of our cards except this last one…that actually following through on a threat to boycott…with undefined consequences (left to your worst case scenario - imagination) for a GAFCON meeting months away gives final pause to the ABC and his orthodox supporters (no chance of altering his liberal supporters) to change their strategy or be guaranteed defeat…it is the all in bet…

Sarah,

Perhaps a more apt comparison might be taken from the covenant of marriage.

If a husband takes up with a mistress openly and refuses to end the affair, then it may well be necessary for the couple to seperate and depending on the financial circumstances of the home, it could be that the wife would chose (by necessity) to leave until the husband is willing to return to the covenant.

The wife, in these circumstances, would not be duty bound to sue for divorce, although she would certainly have the right to do so.

Since the ABC has taken up with a prostitute “church” he cannot expect all the other churches to attend Communion meetings. And if they choose not to attend, it is certainly not their duty to sue for divorce although it is certainly their right.

The problem is that the post HOB “polling” was not at all what DAR anticipated. First of all it was to be the primates as a body not the JSC that would form the initial assessment of the HOB Response. Second, they were to take council together, not separately by mail, so that their could be a real meeting of minds. Third, the ACC was never anticipated as having a role in the assessment, much less having a hand in conditioning the primates’ consideration of the Response through the JSC report.

The entire assessment process was juiced to produce the most favorable judgment possible for TEC so that the ABC would have a reason not to withdraw invitations. Not to see this purposeful conditioning is to turn a blind eye to everything that the ABC has done since the Subgroup report was foisted on the primates in Tanzania.

I like the marriage analogy better…

Abp. Gregory,

A change of heart is always possible in the grace of Our Lord.  In this case, for many of the reasons laid out here by others.  It is not something to regret if it is indeed from God.  Indeed, it is something to be praised.  And so I do pray, as you have encouraged us to do, despite your sense that people’s minds are already made up.  There have been many mistakes made, by Canterbury and others. Over and over.  They are mistakes that are still not owned up to by many (no doubt, by people like me also).  They include the kinds of things you have noted as destroying trust and hope in a process that one might have had, and perhaps once had, greater trust and hope in.  But the “extra mile” is is a ray of light for the world, despite feeling like a burden.  Perhaps you are hearing here the voice from Macedonia bidding that you come and help. Or perhaps it is rather Agabus speaking.  Either way, Paul went.  I know that you and others are capable of bringing to bear that light, even at a Lambeth Conference!  That is why I am praying that you will be there.  Blessings in Christ.

Thanks Fr. Matt.

Sarah,
I don’t think it is fair to phrase the question that way (ie: what positive actions on the part of the ABoC/ Communion structures would it take for Bp. Venables to attend Lambeth), because it essentially asks orthodox primates to set some sort of minimum requirement- which could then be followed by a JSC type report that says that the primates requirements have been met, or by some new outrage not currently contemplated.  Certainly, as open as Bp. Venables has been with us on this and other threads, I cannot imagine that +Rowan is unaware of his position and his opinion of the need for Communion discipline. Let us pray that Cantaur recognizes that he must fulfill the commitments he has made, and that he recognizes that TEC is not in compliance with Dar, and that the agenda of Lambeth is reworked to make it into a conference that addresses the needs of the Communion in this dire hour, and not the “jamboree” currently planned.  And let the primates reach their own discernment based on facts on the ground (hopefully improved from where we are now).  If they state “minimums”, then they are bargaining, and I think part of the point (as I read the various GS communiques and some of the comments above) is that they are through bargaining with people they do not trust.  Which position I must sympathize with, having been in TEC for all of my 54 years.
  The one thing that give me reason for optimism is that the Lord may have some surprises for us yet.
  Let us pray that His will be done.
    Prayers for all in this new year, and good night
    TJ

Matt,

I understand that many of the Primates desired a more immediate discipline process than the ABC, and this was reflected in the DES statement. But the DES statement is hardly the only, nor the most significant document through which we can interpret the ABC’s actions. The Windsor Report, obviously, must be brought into account first, as well as the ABC’s own status as an IU, in peer status with the Primates Meeting. As such, the DES statement is the expression of only one fourth of the IU, as is the ABC’s essay Challenge and Hope. It is difficult to say exactly what the mutual accountability between the IU must look like, but the ABC has consistently said his decisions would be “in consultation” with the other IU, such as the Primates Meeting. Keep in mind that a significant discipline was administered by the Primates at Dromantine in suspending TEC from the ACC.

But again, the specific precedents set and mutual accountability is hard to discern, as there are no specific canons or juridical structures to account for situations like the one precipitated by GC 2003, as Challenge and Hope states outright. Any appeal to one particular document such as DES as definitive, seems to me to fail to acknowledge the essentially chaotic state of Anglican Communion discipline that is at the core of this crisis. This problem goes much further back than 2003. Going back to at least Archbishop Runcie, there have been calls to fix this state of affairs. Given that backdrop, I don’t think one can point to any one action, document or statement as definitive. It has always seemed to me that failure or success at Lambeth 08 would be the real test. Failure, in the form of another ambiguous fudge, or success, in the form of a clear and unambiguous Covenant.

Archbishop Venables: thank you for participating and lending your insight and voice to this discussion. I don’t envy your position. Might I suggest that full and good-faith participation at Lambeth would be one of the best things that could happen to CCP, GAFCON, etc.? It would lend a tremendous credibility to those gatherings if they were moving forward having participated fully in the Windsor Process, which points to Lambeth as the endpoint. I think it’s difficult for many of us of a ComCon persuasion to commit to an organization that we feel may not have given the Communion its best shot, or that in any way undermined it precipitously. A full, earnest participation at Lambeth would go a long, long way towards demonstrating CCP’s good faith intentions. This is not an accusation of bad faith on my part, just a description of the general perception from the ComCon perspective. I wonder if there are not a number of orthodox primates who would feel this way as well. But I’m just speculating.

Hear hear.  Dave Sims.  Hear hear.

And as the old adage goes - “the world is run by those who show up”.

Peace,

But David, I did not appeal to the DES in a vacuum. I noted that the DES was the climax of a series of Communion decisions beginning at Dromantine where the WR was accepted with signficant amendments and Nottingham where the decisions of Dromantine were ratified by the ACC. The series of meetings and decisions dating from Dromantine that involved 3 IU’s…the primates, ABC, and ACC enforcing the decision of the fourth, Lambeth 98.

The idea that there was not sufficient communion warrant in 2007 to withdraw invitations is to overlook not simply DAR, but the entire process beginnning in 2004 at Dromantine…or, more accurately, in 1998

I agree with you Matt, that there was warrant to withdraw, and I wish they had been. I’m simply saying that the failure to withdraw is not the decisive action defining this crisis. And I think, given the divided nature of the primates response to NO07 (for whatever reasons), that the ABC was within his prerogative as an IU not to withdraw. But I point out again that such a prerogative is conventional and ad hoc, given the loose structure and ill-defined nature of the mutual accountability within the 4IU. Only Lambeth can remedy that.

But, Fr. Matt, often in politics and sometimes in judicial opinions (and as you point out sometimes even in Anglican matters) one works backwards from the answer you want.

Not sure its a sin.  At least in the 1st 2 instances.

Let’s just say for argument’s sake, the weakened King’s only power left is to summon Parliament and to live with what action Parliament takes.  Yet enough of the weary and justifiably disheartened but right-minded members stay away that good order cannot be restored to the kingdom.

For the want of a nail.  . . . (bishop, primate . . .)

Good night & God bless,

I agree with [208] tjmcmahon

The one thing that give me reason for optimism is that the Lord may have some surprises for us yet.

However, when we discuss on the thread whether this or that document or process is important I think we are missing the really important issue: the GS primates and their fellow bishops who are not going to attend Lambeth are not doing this because of any particular communiqué or process.

They are avoiding Lambeth to a large extent because they have very good reason to know that many of the western liberal bishops who will be attending are untrustworthy liars, and are people who are working actively to subvert the Gospel and destroy the church as the GS bishops know it. They have said that Lambeth, as it is now organized, including the welcoming of this large group of known untrustworthy enemies of the Gospel is not something they want to waste their time with. They have been pretty plain about that. They actually do believe that a bishop’s “yes” should really means “yes”, and that any bishop should believe, obey and defend the essential tenets of Christianity, not, at best pretend to believe, but attack and fail to defend Christian essentials.

I do not see anything which will sway them from that clear understanding and its consequences - at the least avoiding Lambeth.

And as the old adage goes - “the world is run by those who show up”.

The GS Primates will show up.  They have been at the front of this battle.  They just believe the front has shifted, now to GAFCON.

As Christians, we do not own our time, talent, and treasure. The resources that the Good Lord has placed at our disposal do indeed belong to the Lord, and are for the work of the Lord.
For the orthodox bishops, planning on attending Lambeth 08 under the present circumstances do not appear to be a wise decision, imho. The GAFCON idea, at this time, is a good way of letting the perverters of the Gospel know that the orthodox are not insane- doing the same thing over and over again, and hoping for a different result is a good indication of insanity. The orthodox may be anything but insane.
I do know TEC as much as most people who have been paying attention to these matters over the years do. I TOTALLY agree with ++Venables on this and other issues. Anyone who does not clearly see where this is heading is playing in the sand- with the head in the sand. Going to Lambeth and hoping for a change of heart from those who are indicating no desire or inclination at such a prospect of turning back appears to be a wrong-headed, if I may add my 2cents.
Fr. Kingsley+
Arlington, TX, Diocese of Fort Worth

Dr. Radner,

In light of your comments on this thread yesterday, do you have any reaction to the CofE’s response just released, which seems to accept key parts of the current draft and will be I would think totally unacceptable to ECUSA?

Mark,

Thanks for bringing this up.  First, let me say that I have not had the chance to look at comments on Stand Firm’s laying out of the Draft Covenant.  I will, however, will be printing them out, and collating them.  If I do not respond to them personally, it is not because they are being ignored;  just the opposite. So please continue to comment on those posts elsewhere on this site.

As for the Church of England response, just made public, I have only had a chance to skim it.  They have adopted the approach, not of whole-scale revision (including structural revision), but of comments and suggestions for specific elements within the Draft as originally laid out.  I find this approach helpful, not only because it preserves the basic structure—which may or may not be a good thing—but because it allows particular concerns be precisely understood.

In any case, you are right, Mark, that the C. of E. response leaves intact the guts of the Draft that are clearly problematic for TEC.  This includes the controversial Section 6, and—if I have read the response correctly—maintains the Primates’ Meeting as a key player in adjudication, and also leaves intact the notion of a member church “leaving” the Covenant Community, as it were, through its conscious decisions.  Even if—as I have no doubt—this section needs greater precision, both in its original form and in the form of the suggested revisions from the C. of E.—it is highly significant that the C. of E.‘s response accepts the general principle at issue here, and, furthermore, specifies it in terms of Communion “discipline” that member churches will “accept” through their embrace of the Covenant itself. 

This is truly a remarkable development, especially in contrast with the Executive Council’s response from TEC.  For those traditional Anglicans who are consistently pessimistic about the trajectory of the Communion, with the C. of E. as a central member member, this response appears to offer some very substantive and redirected hope.  It ought to be rather important news throughout the Church.

For the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, on behalf of the General Synod of the CofE and after discussion with the entire House of Bishops, to propose a covenant that is known to be unacceptable to the Episcopal Church is “truly a remarkable development.”

Perhaps that is why Schori is now throwing all caution to the wind, Mark.

bb

Dear Abp Gregory,

I’ve only been Anglican for about two years now (formerly Orthodox Presbyterian, and Heinz-57 Evangelical before that), so please forgive what would most certainly be less astute observations coming from (e.g.,) one of the moderators of SF.  I’ve also not been able to keep completely up to speed with other commenters and developments, unfortunately. 

It seems to me that our present identity crisis can be likened to disparate group of optomologists, attempting to define the spectral limits of human vision.  At the onset of their quest, they come together and define themselves as a group of optomologists who are not ear, nose, and throat doctors, nor medical researchers, nor general practicioners, nor (etc) whose purpose is to define the limits of human vision. 

The problem is that there is a significant portion of the group who are color-blind.  Several disputes arise from this problem:  Are the color-blind optomologists to be thrown out of the organization, simply because they are a little bit different?  After all, there are grants, and other things, at stake. 

Several schemes emerge on how to deal with this.  A popular opinion comes forth – Since everyone in the group can see light that falls in a certain (narrower) bandwidth of wavelengths, why not define the limits of human vision to fall within that reduced bandwidth? 

The problem with this, is that the original purpose of the group, to define the ordinary limits of human vision, has been sacrificed on the alter of identity.  What they are left with, is an identity based on a biased conclusion, supporting a conclusion based on a biased identity. 

Some of the wiser optometrists, recognize the unhelpful pattern, and seek to break out of it. 

We’re a lot like that, I think.  The proposed covenant seems to me to be wrestling with the question of Anglican identity, at the same time it wrestles with matters of discipline, which is intimately tied to doctrine (which is intimately tied to identity … etc).  I guess what I’d suggest is inviting people who are not us, but like us, to assist in the development of the proposed covenant.  If Anglicanism is a bridge of sorts between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, I’d suggest inviting conservatives (i.e., Protestant and Roman Catholic) from both sides to work with our development committees, rather than handling everything ‘in-house.’ 

Why would this be a good idea?  I’ll give two reasons, off the top of my head. 
First, it seems to me that too many of our leaders are too concerned about being in good stead with other Anglicans, and not enough concerned about being good Christians.  If we asked for assistance from Christians who are “not us, but like us,” then we’d have to come to grips with the substance of our Christian identity;  which is what we must do FIRST if we are to preserve and / or create a distinctive Anglican Identity. 

And second, along the same line of thought, we’d benefit from defining “what we are not,” on equally reliable bases.  For it seems that the “what we are not,” has been changed within the last 40 or so years, to be .. something else, which is not remotely Christian. 

Thank you,
- Moot

I am deeply saddened and disappointed by the authoritarian and aggressive tone of this communication. It is not only the revisionists who ned to learn humility. If this is indicative of the general course of “orthodox” Anglicanism, there will be many (including myself) who find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.

Not at all sure why you say that notworthyofthename. The Church is not an egalitarian free for all. Dr. Poon was rightly confronted by his elder in the faith for his disrespect and misrepresentation.

Moot,  I like your thinking—a lot. And I also think that your basic idea about going outside of the Communion for help is a first-rate idea. I have often thought that this might be helpful.

For a number of fairly obvious reasons, this cannot and will not happen in conjunction with the team that is actually drafting the Covenant, per se. Nor will “outside” input be sought when the draft is finally refined to its final form for approval. BUT, there is no reason at all why the orthodox faction cannot and should not seek such “outside” help PRIOR TO the official presentation of the draft.

Some such “outsiders” (I am thinking here not only of Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox here, but also of some of the orthodox Protestants who have already had considerable experience battling revisionist factions within their particular context—the PCA, LCMS, the EPCA, etc.) could probably offer invaluable insights. More than just advising orthodox Anglicans on specific issues of Covenant language and the overall structure of the Covenant, they could probably offer substantial advice regarding the correct strategies and tactics that need to be employed in order to get the Covenant ratified.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of several dozen important people who occupy positions of leadership within each of the above-mentioned churches, who would LOVE to help orthodox Anglicans “clean house,” as it were.

Moot, thank you for a REALLY GOOD idea. I am going to pass this one along to some of the people that I personally know who are leading our orthodox tropps into battle. I have no doubt at all that the idea will meet with a lot of resistance, at first, but I think it just might be possible to wear down some of this resistance with persuasive arguments.

My gut feeling is that our orthodox brethren from the GS will be MUCH MORE resistant to this basic idea than those of us who are in North America. But this does not have to be a formal thing, at all—just putting together a very loose and informal “advisory team” from other churches would be a big step in the right direction.

BTW, I think that the Church of England’s comments and notes on the proposed draft of the Covenant is genuinely astonishing. I would have bet my rent money that they were going to try to very deftly remove the backbone from this document. It seems as if they are prepared to pretty much let it go through as it is. Maybe, they are hoping or anticipating that the Covenant will be weakened by OTHERS, as it proceeds from being a “draft” to becoming a ratified document—in other words, maybe they are hoping that others will do their dirty work for them. But the very fact that they are obviously a bit spooked about tampering with this thing too much would seem to indicate that they are fairly well aware that CHANGES ARE COMING, whether they like it or not.

When the history of these times are written, RW’s decision to invite TEC to Lambeth08 will be seen, I think, as perhaps the most profound ecclesiological blunder made by an ABC in the last 100 years

Fr. Matt…just 100 years? Please provide examples of greater mismanagement.
Intercessor

Good point Intercessor, I was trying to be generous

Matt and Intercessor, you both are being generous in using “blunder” and “mismanagement” to describe the ABC’s reign.  As ++Venables was pointing out, he has lost all trust among the orthodox Primates.  Words like dishonesty, deceit and double-dealing seem more appropriate when one looks at his use of the sub-group report in Dar and the JSC in NOLA.  It is a disgrace to the Anglican Communion and to the catholic church.

hanks
I said,
“no more trust in the Anglican system” 149
“absence of trust in the Communion” 157
“there is no more trust” 172

Hanks,
I am generous by nature. I suppose that in the global court of opinion in reference to Dr. Williams ; 50,000,000 scripture driven Anglicans can’t all be wrong.

Also, as a member of the San Joaquin Diocese may I take this opportunity to welcome and offer continued heartfelt prayers for our Pastoral father Greg Venables and also for Bp. Frank Lyons.

They may never know how much we love them for their courage and their faith. I ,for one, will never ever forget them and the light of Christ that shines through them.

Intercessor

Well, I’ve abstained from joining in the fray for a long time now, and haven’t seen anyone else maike the kind of comment I’ve long been wanting to make.  So here goes.

I appreciate ++Venables taking the time to participate in this thread for quite a while.  And I take very seriously his call to prayer for those of us, a growing number I believe, who are increasingly concerned that a widespread boycott of Lambeth 2008 by the massive dominant GS churches like Nigeria and Uganda could spoil everything that we’ve been working toward for so long.  And just when victory was finally within our grasp.

I say, let’s not give up on making our foes the ones who are FORCED out of the AC.  And I do believe that’s possible.  How?  Let me explain.  Others, after all, have exercized their imaginations and laid out various possible scenarios above.  This is my shot at an ideal scenario.

1.  All 880 some bishops in the AC go to Lambeth in July.  Once there, they can simply take over the whole event.  They immediately trash the prepared agenda from the AC Office, while politely thanking Canon Kearon for his work.  And the bishops immediately create their own agenda, a missions-driven, action-oriented one, with the primary goal of SETTLING this fight once and for all (even over Cantaur’s objections).  And making sure REAL discipline gets meted out to the apostate leaders of TEC and the ACoC and their liberal ilk.

2.  The assembled bishops then invite +Minns, +Guernsey, +Atwood, +Chuck Murphy, +Cavalcanti etc.  After all, why act as if the Archbishop of Canterbury is more than just the host and the “first among equals?”  Once gathered, the bishops can do as they please, or as they dare.  Cantuar is no more than a facilitator, and he has shown that he has neither the desire nor the ability to lead.  So the key GS bishops fill the vacuum, get out in front, and lead.

3.  A MUCH STENGTHENED version of the Covenant is pushed through, over strenuous western objections.  Matt+, this is where we are likely to disagree most.  You doubt that such radical things could ever emerge from committees and get to the floor.  Nonsense!  Where there’s a will, there’s a way.  And there is no doubt that the GS is FED UP with TEC and all its duplicitous ways.  We have the votes.  We simply ram the new Covenant down the gagging throats of our liberal foes. 

Part of that new AC membership-defining Covenant would be an explicit affirmation that Holy Scripture is the Word of God, the supreme authority in all disputed matters for Anglicans, and “the ultimate rule and standard of faith and practice” (a worthy follow up to Lambeth 1886).  It would also include an explicit condemnation of homosexual behavior as contrary to the will of God, as well as “incompatible with Scripture” (a worthy follow up to Lambeth 1998).  And it should include something like the old Article 20 of the 39 Articles in declaring flatly that nothing contrary to the clear and consistent teaching of Holy Scripture can be taught by Anglicans as normative (not just as “necessary for salvation,” nothing unbiblical can ever be taught as normative Anglican doctrine).  Period.

4.  We create a whole new 5th Instrument of Unity for the AC.  This is what I keep calling an Anglican Supreme Court.  We desperately need an international body that can nullify the legislative actions of wayward provinces and declare them “unconstitutional” because they violate the clear teaching of the Bible, which is the true constitution of any Christian Church worthy of the name.  I’d let the bishops hash out just what form that international body would take, but it would be much smaller than the Primates’ Meeting. 

The point is that this group would be the final authority in all disputed matters.  And yes, their decisions would be binding.  This Anglican “Supreme Court” would be the final court of appeals.  That would prevent this kind of bitter, unresolvable dispute from ever disrupting the life of the AC again, the way our present controversy has.

4A.  A footnote is in order here, since this is my most radical proposal.  We desperately need to create a system of checks and balances at the international level of the AC.  Right now, we have sheer anarchy and chaos, because each province can do as it seems fit, with no real sanctions.  It’s like the miserable, intolerable situation at the end of the book of Judges, when “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

4B.  But this is not simply a move in the direction of a stronger, central authority, a “Federal” system of polity, if you will.  Instead of that secular analogy, I prefer to draw upon our rich historical tradition and say that this would represent another step in the gradual Anglican reclaiming of our patristic heritage.  At Lambeth 1886, we reclaimed “the historic episcopate” as normative, as part of the famous Quadrilateral.  Well, that is PART of our glorious, rich patristic inheritance (though I wish we’d put as much emphasis on “the historic deaconate” as we do “the historic epsicopate,” for both are essential elements in the classic three-fold ordering of ordained ministry).  At Lambeth 2008, let’s follow up that move and reclaim the patristic idea that international councils can issue binding decisions on Doctrine (e.g., the Covenant) and Discipline (international canon laws).

4C.  Remember our American history?  Before the “Second Founding” of America during the Civil War era, it used to be said that “the United States ARE…” because the states were seen as primary, and the federal government was secondary and weaker.  After the war, the language subtly but significantly changed, and ever since we say, “the United States IS (a country that…)” 

In a similar way, I boldly claim that something similar needs to come out of this church civil war.  And the result needs to be that the international structures begin to take precedence over the various national or regional ones.  We need to morph into a true Anglican Communion, indeed into a single Anglican Church, with subordinate, SEMI-autonomous national branches. 

BTW, that is not abandoning our historic Anglican avoidance of over-centralized Roman-style governance.  We aren’t talking about a Pope and Curia here.  Just a recovery of the patristic conciliar model, where the councils are for more than consultation and fellowship.  They can make binding decisions.  Now that would amount to a real New Reformation!  A “Second Founding” of Anglicanism, if you will.

5.  Finally, it’s time to tackle the whole problem of how the AC is structured on an international basis.  It’s high time we stopped counting the wrong things, provinces and dioceses, and started counting what really counts, Anglican believers.  Up until now, all the 38 provinces have had essentially equal representation, regardless of size, or spiritual maturity etc.  As a result, tiny provinces like Scotland or Wales, or Korea or Pakistan, have equal voice and vote with the giant provinces like Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya.  This just isn’t right!

Of course, it made sense when all the so-called “Instruments of Unity” or “Instruments of Communion” were merely for occasional consultation, fostering cooperation, and reinforcing the famous “bonds of affection.”  But clearly governing bodies must be set up differently.

Now maybe we do need a bi-cameral system.  With one house like the U.S. Senate, so that puny little provinces like Hong Kong, Japan, or Myanmar, aren’t totally overshadowed by monster size provinces like Nigeria and Uganda (cf. California and Texas vs. Rhode Island and Delaware).  I’m not opposed to that.

But the real power needs to be vested in something much more fair and just, with representation based on actual size (and yes, I do mean that the C of E would be represented as if it had only 3 million members at most, instead of the 26 million on the formal rolls as nominal baptized members, most of them being totally lapsed).  That would mean an AC with the GS in total control.  And rightly so.  They’ve earned it.  They have the blessing of God upon them, and the future of the AC is really up to them, not to us in the secularized, declining Post-Christendom West. 

Now maybe the prospect of that could entice Nigeria and Uganda to come to Lambeth after all.

Let’s face it.  Whatever happens at GAFCON in June and Lambeth in July/August, the AC will never be the same after 2008.  But being the eternal optimist that I am (according to my wife), I am confident, in the Lord, that “the best is yet to come!”  I believe we could see a whole new KIND of Anglicanism emerge from the ashes of the current, broken and obsolete one, what I like to call, “the New Anglicanism.”  Now that’s a New Refromation worth fighting for.

Is that hopelessly idealistic?  Well, only time will tell.  But what do we have to lose??

Once again, I urge us all to pray that the GS will attend Lambeth in full force and bend the Conference to their will.  And, pulling the indecisive, hapless ABoC along in tow, and the dragging the obstructionist AC Office kicking and screaming all the way, let us remake Anglicanism for a new millenium, the third Christian millenium.  Let’s ram a strong Covenant down the throats of the liberal western provinces, create a whole new international GOVERNING structure (including an Anglican “Supreme Court,”) that recovers a patristic-style conciliarism, and thus put the Doctrine and Discipline back in the historic “Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship” of our precious Anglican heritage.

And if the liberals don’t like it, so what?  Frankly, who cares?  I don’t.  Let them go to hell.  And I mean that literally!

David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Fierce Proponent of an aggressive, militant New Reformation

Thanks Fr David.
Give me a moment to get my head round it!

Fr. David:
Yes.  My guess is a population of ECUSA bishops storm out, to their detriment. 

BTW, regarding Supreme Court type structures, have you glanced at my 1st cut at an Extraordinary Council of Review (ECR) proposal over at the 5th section of comments to the Draft Covenant?

Peace,

If I’ve been understanding it correctly, GAFCON is intended to build a network and unified force prior to Lambeth. Your model conforms to this well.

The venue isn’t so important, and maybe it is good to move it from the Middle East to some place that is more accessible - say a New England State here in America - NH, CT, MA.  There is a wonderful conference facility in Hartford, CT, that should be considered. Here, we needn’t be concerned about permissions, since the PB is liberal about such things. Other good sites might be Charleston, Savanah, or Chattanooga - there are fewer liberals in these towns. Ah, lots of towns like convention business and will be supportive of the arrangements.

Even if a core team attended and others could provide input by teleconference, much could be accomplished. GAFCON needs to be a media event that projects the orthodox mission at Lambeth. Then, everyone that supports Anglican tradition needs to go to Lambeth to take control of that meeting.

I agree. Real changes can be make if those concerned about the innovations act.

Father Handy,  You are SO MUCH MORE CLEAR-HEADED and articulate than I am. And I am thrilled that Archbishop Venables has actually now seen your proposals. They are good, solid, completely plausible ideas. Especially as regards Lambeth. I hope that Archbishop Venables will, indeed, grapple in prayer with your suggestions. And, at the very least, pass them on to other GS Primates.

The idea of some sort of adjudicating body is, of course, an extremely difficult thing to do right. Frankly, I think that the catechism being drawn up by Dr. Poons and his colleagues may, potentially, function as a “check” on the Covenant—if it can somehow be properly added as an addendum to the Covenant. But I haven’t given this an awful lot of thought, beyond trying to imagine the scope of the problems involved in actually maintaining doctrinal order in the Communion, even should the Covenant be adopted.

In another comment somewhere earlier today, I said that it is my assumption that there is no direct connection between aatendance at Lambeth and the right to ratify the Covenant. Am I correct about this? I am VERY ENCOURAGED by the C of E’s initial comments on the draft document. Frankly, I was SURE that they were going to object strenuously to some of the more important ideas so far incorporated into the draft. The fact that they gave it a pass, more or less, is very good news, in my opinion. Am I correct in assuming that a symbolic gesture—such as non-attendance at Lambeth—would not preclude, say, Nigeria from participating in the ratification of such a document? And if this is true, then doesn’t that somewhat mitigate any discussion of the importance of actually being at Lambeth? In other words, does the Covenant present an opportunity for the orthodox to make a symbolic end-run around the revisionists?

#233, ++Venables,

Take your time.  It’s very long indeed and complex, not to mention bold and controversial.  I don’t expect anyone to agree with me 100%.  I’m delighted you’re still with us.  BTW, I’m an old college friend of +Frank Lyons.  We went to Wheaton College together in the 1970s, and we both sang in the Men’s Glee Club (though he was one or two years ahead of me.)

#234, miserable sinner,

I regret to say that I haven’t seen your piece yet, but I’ll go look it up.  Thanks.

David Handy, Ph.D.
Given to occasional outbursts of hyperbole (so take that into account when evaluating the long epistle above)

RE: “Dr. Poon was rightly confronted by his elder in the faith for his disrespect and misrepresentation.”

I am thrilled that Dr. Poon has registered his concerns.  But for him, I would never have known about the differences of opinion amongst the GS about the GAFCON meeting.  I object to Dr. Poons odd questions which none of us ever understood if rhetorical, etc. and I object to Dr. Poon implying that the GAFCON conference was purporting to represent a larger group like the Global South or some other larger group.

But I’m all for people putting on the record and in writing what their objections or concerns are—as I said long, long ago:

“I take a somewhat different tack from the comments above.  I think in this sad spectacle, that blame rests on a number of sides.

What I would have appreciated in Dr. Poon is that if he had facts that he would share them without asking bizarre and confusing questions which some thought he had no clue about and others thought he did know about but wouldn’t say.  My understanding is that Dr. Poon has, for instance, supported Archbishop Akinola and numerous other players in the Global South.  I don’t think that we can fairly discount him for being “not orthodox” or somehow suspect as an “institutionalist.”

And . . . it appears that there were real conversations and that there is real disagreement that has now become public.

From the beginning I have been FOR “private” and “carefully obscured” yet serious disagreements being public eventually.  If minor, then I understand.  But it’s been four years.  Four long years.  And if certain disagreements have not yet been hashed out in private then yes, they need to be public, so that the entire bank of orthodox Anglicans which this effects can be aware.

I’m grateful, for instance, that at last the serious disagreements in the Network about “inside” and “outside” strategies were made public, and quite frankly, I sure could have used more honesty and clarity about this earlier—would have helped a lot.

Sorry, but after my time in ECUSA I am sick to death of my revisionist “betters” hiding, and lying, and sneaking, and covering up, and papering over, and pretending that we all “agree” or have some sort of “unity” when we clearly do not have unity.  In the same way with the large group of orthodox Anglicans that are now working through strategy and how to proceed and have now divided over strategies and tactics.  Once attempts to settle disagreements fail on a private level, and those disagreements continue to be played out, then yes, I’m for all of knowing about them, so that we ourselves can make decisions.

Sorry, but I don’t trust the “pure motives” of any player in this sorry debacle.  And I’m very very thankful to know about what limited matters I can pick up, even if its a scrap from a now cut dialogue over at Global South Anglican.”

As I said above Sarah, if Dr. Poon had simply written an article opposing Gafcon, I would disagree but he would not be deserving of censure and, even more, it would as you say be a good thing. But as you note, that is not what he did. He misrepresented the Gafcon claims and did so in a way that communicated disdain and disrespect. He seemed even to question their orthodoxy in his first query which is far far beyond the pale.

#236, bluenarrative,

Like you, I’m frankly astonished to get the ear of a leading Primate with some of my perhaps “wild-eyed” and idealistic hopes.  Thanks for your kind words.

As for your questions, I’m not the best person to ask.  After all, I’m a biblical scholar and wanna be theologian, not an expert on church polity.  I’ll let others chime in there.

But let me say that I do appreciate your courage in standing up to defend Dr. Michael Poon, when he recently came under so much fire for his frank questioning of aspects of the GAF Conference.  I too have high hopes for the new Catechism.  But by itself, it can do little.  What is needed most is some kind of authoritative international body that can settle disputes on highly controversial matters that threaten to destroy the whole common life of the AC.  I don’t care what it’s called.  But it’s just got to be created.  Or we are sitting ducks to go through this kind of thing all over again. 

For example, we face the imminent prospect of a similar communion-destroying conflict over the rapidly growing western practice of giving communion to anyone and everyone present at a eucharist, whether they are baptized or not, whether they are believers or not etc.  If anything, that seems even worse to me than tolerating homosexual behavior.

David Handy+

Writing a catechism—THAT is one job that I would NEVER want!!! Imagine a professor of, say, quantum physics at MIT being asked to prepare a text that would be both comprehensive and understandable to students ranging from, oh, 3rd grade on through graduate school!

I do think all the orthodox bishops should go to Lambeth.  It would be foolish to let their participation in the closest thing we have to a council be deterred by bishops who believe neither in conciliarism nor (I think) in the Christian faith.  If orthodox bishops don’t fully participate in Lambeth, that will be a real setback.  Lambeth isn’t perfect—far from it—but no options are perfect.

I would want to caution everybody against setting too much hope in either Lambeth or GAFCon.  One of the biggest problems we are dealing with here in TEC is the fact that there are now at least one and probably close to two generations of clergy who generally are not well informed about either the Bible or the distinctiveness of the Christian faith.  We can all complain about Jefferts Schori.  But remember who elected her as 26th presiding bishop.  So even if we get a wonderfully orthodox Covenant and a fine Anglican Catechism—as I hope we will and as we desperately need—a big problem in TEC is how in the world anything remotely orthodox is going to be implemented, and by whom.

Rudy+

Please pray as I seek to share with my colleagues in the coming days about these important considerations. God is sovereign.
Romans 8 28.

Bishop Gregory, we pray for you, all the many bishops and priests who uphold the faith, and for the Church.

Gregory, God has called you according to his sovereign purpose, and He knows that you indeed love Him, and wants you to know that He loves you and will bless you as you continue to seek His will.

(from the thorns of the Briar Patch),

Lord,
We lift up to your mercy and care the Anglican Communion which for so long you have nurtured and loved.  Forgive us our failings in our earthly care of this precious gift you have given to your servants.  May your name be glorified in the future of this Communion and may its future fulfill your divine will for those under its care.  If its time for amendment or dissolution has come, may it done to your glory and with your peace.

We lift up the leaders of this Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Religious and Laity.  May your servant, Rowan be granted wise action and true faith through this coming year.  May those who advise him seek to discern your will and truth alone.  May wisdom be upon all bishops who assemble in your name this summer at Lambeth and in all their preparations for their coming together. 

May you guide, protect and defend all those who seek to do your will for the future of the Anglican Communion in whatever form you have chosen for it. 

May you grant amendment of doctrine, life and faith to those who need to conform to your will and truth.  May you guide each of us away from untruth and error.

Guide especially your servant, Gregory, as he seeks discerment and guidance from you.  May the wisdom of the patriarchs and apostles be his wisdom. May the Holy Spirit be upon him, and all bishops in their lives and undertakings this coming year.

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. AMEN.

Amen

++Venables,

You have honored us all by participating in the discussion on this thread.  I too will join in praying for you in the difficult days ahead.  The stakes are so high.  But if the dangers are great, so are the opportunities!

You reminded us of Romans 8:28.  It’s very apt.  God does indeed work all things for good, but only for those who love God and are called according to his purpose (and thus cooperate with it).  And we so easily forget what that purpose is, nothing less than that we all become comformed to the image of his dear Son.  He wants so much more for us than our mere happiness or comfort.  He wants our wholeness, and our holiness.  Alas, those don’t come without a substantial price to be paid.  And yet, what could be more glorious than to be like Christ?

++Gregory Venables, I know I speak for many, many others in saying that YOU ARE A HERO!  A champion.  As +Bob Duncan “the Lion-Hearted” says so often, “Courage breeds courage.”  And your courage, for instance, in taking on the Diocese of San Joaquin, gives fresh hope and courage to many of us.

But since you invoked the words of St. Paul to encourage us, let me return the favor.  Be steadfast, and God will reward you.  Your labors, in Christ, will not be in vain!  1 Cor. 15:58;  Gal. 6:9-10.

David Handy+

God is, indeed, sovereign. Let us all pray that He asserts his Lordship over this awful mess. I have been praying daily, and will continue to do so. God, please grant strength and wisdom and patience and humility to all of these Bishops as they seek to do Your will.

Amen to the prayer in 246. All praise and thanks be to our God.

On the question of the identity of the “unnamed primate,” Canon AkinTunde Popoola, Communications Director of the Church of Nigeria, posted the following comment at Thinking Anglicans addressing speculation by Graham Kings and others that +Akinola was the primate who wrote to Poon:

Dear Graham, JPM and Malcom+
Regarding your comments above, Archbishop Peter Akinola will like you and others so inclined to know that he has not been in conversation written or otherwise with Dr Poon concerning GAFCON.
I however believe Dr. Poon knows how to reach the Archbishop if he wants to.
Posted by: Tunde on Wednesday, 2 January 2008 at 5:04pm GMT

The Thinking Anglicans thread on which this was posted is the one linked by Matt at the top of this thread.

Mark McCall,  I don’t think that ANYBODY ever really yhtought that Archbishop Akinola wrote that letter. It was pretty obvious from the start of this contretemps that the letter from an “unnamed Primate” had suspicious origins.

This is precisely WHY Dr. Poon did not reveal who’s “signature” appeared on the letter, and why he made reference to the metadata. Clearly, however, somebody THOUGHT (rather foolishly) that they could speak (or write) in the name of an Archbishop, and that such a letter would, more or less, express Archbishop Akinola’s views on this matter.

Much more to the point, I think, is Canon Popoola’s statement that Dr. Poon knows how to get in touch with Archbishop Akinola, if he wants to.

In pite of everything that has gone on over the past several days around the various issues raised by the proposed GAFCON meeting, I think it would be a good idea for Dr. Poon to call Archbishop Akinola and begin the process of mending fences. I am VERY SYMPATHETIC to Dr. Poon and I share many of his same concerns about GAFCON. But I also think that it is important that everybody on the orthodox side come together now and begin moving forward with as much unity as we can muster. And I do not think that the onus should necessarily be on the Primate of Nigeria to initiate this process.

As Christians, we are ALL called upon to be HUMBLE—even theologians of Dr. Poon’s stature. For years and years and years now, Archbishop Akinola has exercised and demonstrated much more humility than I could ever hope to muster under similar circumstances to the ones that he has endured. Archbishop Akinola needs our SUPPORT right now—he does not need anybody—especially those who are largely sympathetic to his wonderfully bold faith—to be snipping at his heels.

There is still a great deal of room for decisive action within the Advent Letter.  It is clear that that invitations to Lambeth imply a willingness to work with the Windsor recommendations.  It is also clear that the time for explanations and discussions of bureaucratic impossibilities has finished.  Those who were involved in the issues the recommendations address, who are called to repentance, and have as yet not publicly repented in an unqualified manner for their specific actions (i.e., not only of causing hurt to the rest of the communion, but the actions themselves), could be called to recuse themselves while a discussion is undertaken regarding what type of repentance is asked - since this is one of the main points which still has to be clarified.  Repentance could be asked for their own sakes, personally, in their functions as bishops, and for the bodies they represent.  Of course, there might be administrative or other reasons that this is not possible.  In such case these bishops and the bodies they represent could be offered the opportunity of returning at a later date, once whatever administrative bodies have taken sufficient action, if this seems desirable.  Until such a date they could be considered important historic partners of the communion.
Those whose representative bodies have been involved in the actions the Windsor recommendations stipulate as requiring repentance, in refusing to do so sufficiently, by definition are not willing to work with Windsor’s implementation.
It would also seem most fitting that they be given such an opportunity at Lambeth, rather than simply face exclusion by non-invitation.  Here, they would be invited - with something specific asked of them.
The letter to Howe and CofE’s comments regarding the draft covenant seem to open the possibility of communion with dioceses.  If it appears that not all bishops of a province are capable of fulfilling the Windsor recommendations, some then, who have either repented, or who were not involved in the actions named by Windsor, could continue at the conference for further discussion of implementation by discussing the draft covenant.
It is always possible that the ABC has something like this in mind when he mentions “direct contact” with those in need of clarification of “how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference’s agenda.”
Were this the case, some dioceses might later see the importance of the Windsor process which, after all, TEC officially agreed to, and eventually meet its requirements.
Should this be the case, I would think that most orthodox primates would be interested in attending.

Bluenarrative,
 
Regarding your post 292: “This is precisely WHY Dr. Poon did not reveal who’s “signature” appeared on the letter, and why he made reference to the metadata”

You seem to know more about metadata than I do, but I simply don‘t understand why you think the computer that releases information defines who wrote it.

When I worked in Public Relations, most public relations statements were thoroughly proofread and suggestions were often solicited from those involved before publication, this is standard procedure, and I would think this process would be more important if public statements were to be released in more than one language.

Today it is not necessary to carry computers from place to place because it is possible to transfer information by CD, flash drive or e-mail, to another computer, people can even do it the old fashioned way and work together, from handwritten notes, at the same computer.
I imagine the computers that are set for the language of the country the statement is to be released in would be the ones that are preferred for that purpose, maybe more than one computer was used, WHO KNOWS, but I certainly would not make any assumptions based on metadata.

Metadata tells you that a document was edited on a computer where the software (usually MS Office) was setup by person ‘X’.  It does not tell you that X wrote the document, though they may have.

Betty See,  I never make assumptions based upon metadata. But, in these strange times, one has to be very careful about everything coming out of cyberspace. Obviously, metadata does NOT define who wrote something—people borrow laptops all the time. People buy used laptops all the time. But I am sure that the U.S State Department, for instance, carefully reviews metadata when receiving email that, say, purportedly is coming Vladimir Putin.

I agree with you completely that any press release should be thoroughly edited and proofread prior to release. I have no idea what the GAFCON people were doing or thinking, but their press release LOOKED to a lot of people as if it had NOT been either edited or proofread. And this strange letter from an “unnamed Primate” appeared, to a lot of people, as being something other than what it purported to be.

Wow.  I confess to having avoided this thread entirely since it’s beginning since I just couldn’t deal with more of the endless speculation and back and forth about Gafcon, and ghostwritten open letters, etc.

It took a heads’ up from Anglican Mainstream about ++Abp. Venables’ participation here to get me back here to read this, and I’m so glad I did.  Deep thought provoking discussion here, and much food for thought and fuel for prayer.

THANK YOU ++Abp. Greg for your willingness to engage in this discussion and your call to prayer.  I assure you of mine and appreciate #246’s prayer and example.

I will also be praying for reconciliation and love and patience among all the orthodox leaders.  I thought Blue Narrative’s comment #252 about the need for Poon+ and ++Akinola to talk together is right on the money.  I’ve learned the hard way about the damage caused by talking about or speculating about others’ motives.  Private discussion between these leaders needs to occur.

Open letters make for fascinating blog fodder, but I think they can sometimes be very dangerous for the spiritual health of those who write and read them…

With thanks to SF for making this forum available, and the thoughtful participation of ++Abp. Venables, Dr. Radner, the SF mods, and so many others who’ve added thoughtful comments.

Karen B. The letter above was not an “open letter” it was a letter sent privately to Dr. Poon, that he subsequently posted with his own response. Thinking Anglicans picked it up. Dr. Poon deleted it. We linked it.

The primate in question did not write an open letter.

Actually, “the Primate in question” did not write that letter at all. Which Dr. Poon had pretty much figured out on his own, before he released it. Who really wrote it? I am sure that, by now, Dr. Poon knows. But he’s not saying. Which is proper.

I am sure that whoever wrote that letter meant well. I am sure that the believed that they were expressing an opinion that many of the organizers of GAFCON would concur with.

But it was a really dumb thing to do. The situation was bad enough with the initial press release. That letter only made things worse.

If you get (what amounts to being, in spite of a “signature”) an anonymous letter, how do you determine who sent it? If you suspect that it came from one of your colleagues or acquaintences, you ask them if they sent it.

Does anybody really think that Dr. Michael Poon should have spent, oh, say 72 non-stop hours or so calling up every single orthodox Anglican that he knows, in order to determine who really wrote that letter?

Bluenarrative,
Why do you bring up the subject of megadata or megafiles at all?

Bluenarrative,
Why should we believe your unsubstantiated accusations?

Dr. Michael Poon received an email. This email was, purportedly, from a Primate. The letter rather severely chastised Dr. Poon for his public remarks about GAFCON. For several very good reasons, Dr. Poon doubted that the letter had really come from the Primate who’s name was attached to the email.

There was internal evidence (the actual content of the letter itself) to suggest that this email had not come from the Primate who’s name was affixed to it. Beyond this internal evidence, there was metadata attached to the email indicating that the email might have originated in North America.

Everybody in positions of leadership and responsibility within the broad orthodox coalition is aware of the fact that 815 does NOT play by the rules. So there are some fairly good security measures in place, across the board. This means that it is highly unlikely that an African or Asian or South American Primate is going to sloppy when communicating with somebody like Dr. Poon, who has been entrusted with some very important work fdor the GS; things like metadata are one way to verify that a thing is authentic. There are other ways, as well.

Dr. Poon publicly responded to the email because 1.) he was pretty sure, if not positive, that it had not come from the person who’s name was affixed to it. And 2.) because it was pretty obvious that whoever had written the email was trying to express opinions that might have reflected the opinions of those who organized GAFCON.

Dr. Poon did NOT najme the Primate, because he was pretty sure that the email had not come from him. Dr. Poon mentioned metadata as being ONE reason why he was initially skeptical about the authorship of this letter.

Betty See,  There is nothing at all unsubstantiated about what I am saying. The only accusation that I am making is that somebody (I do not know who) wrote a letter to Dr. Michael Poon and signed a Primate’s name to this letter. Many people have speculated that Archbishop Akinola was the author of this email. He has now denied writing to Dr. Poon. There is no reason to doubt his word on this. I am sure that whoever wrote the email was convinced that they were giving voice to Archbishop Akinola’s views on the whole affair. According to a statement made today by one of the Archbishop’s Canons, the letter did NOT originate in the Province of Nigeria. I am not now—nor have I ever—tried to figure out who’s signature was on this email. Dr. Poon responded to the letter publicly because he was sure that it had NOT come from the Primate who’s name was affixed to it. That’s good enough for me…

Bluenarrative,
If you are really interested, you can see more up to date information about Gafcon at this address.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8870/

Betty See,  I have seen that thread. I am not sure why, within the context of your questions to me, you are referring me to it. Can you explain what it is you wish me to take note of?

bluenarrative,

You are wrong on a number of levels.

1. your assumption that the primate in question is ++Akinola
2. your assumption that the letter was ghost written for a primate
3. Your assumption that whoever assisted the primate in question in this letter thought he was assisting ++Akinola
3. your assumption that the primate in question was not the author of the letter.

Betty See is absolutely right. you are making wholly unsubstantiated claims and I’ll leave it at that.

Matt+, you misunderstood me.  I wasn’t criticizing SF for publicizing this piece.  My remark about “open letters” was actually meant as a general comment, with some frustration directed against Dr. Poon for airing his concerns in the format he did, and ESPECIALLY for his subsequent publication, of what was intended to be a personal and confidential letter to him, in the comments of the Global South blog.

1.) I did not assume it was Archbishop Akinola—OTHERS did.
2.) According to Dr. Poon, the email was signed by a Primate. Is there any reason not to take his word for this?
3.) Given the fact that the letter was NOT written by the person who’s signature was attached to it—and, again, we can take Dr. Poon’s word for this, I think—what other possible construct can you put on the letter that Dr. Poon has released? Do you think it was written by a revisionist?
4.) How many hours have now passed since Dr. Poon released this letter? If the “unnamed Primate” was the authentic author of the letter—or if he directed somebody else to write if for him or on his behalf—why hasn’t he (the “unnamed Primate”) owned up to it yet?

I am a bit baffled… “wholly unsubstantiated” sounds a bit hyperbolic to me. I am merely reviewing and rehearsing how this contretemps has unfolded up to RIGHT NOW… What on earth do you take to be my “subtext” here??? What, exactly, do you think object to about my attempts to explain this whole affair in simple terms?

Click!

I think I get it now - Dr. Poon thinks he recieved a Zimmerman Telegram, of sorts?

Sheesh.  Blink, or relax at Christmas, and you’re in the dark around here.

No, bluenarrative,

1. You assumed that ++Akinola was the primate in question when you suggested that the person assisting with the letter thought he was writing for ++Akinola.

2. There is absolutely no reason not to take his word for it, which is why I am suprised that you suggested above that the primate in question had no knowledge of the letter. You wrote:

” I am sure that whoever wrote the email was convinced that they were giving voice to Archbishop Akinola’s views on the whole affair. According to a statement made today by one of the Archbishop’s Canons, the letter did NOT originate in the Province of Nigeria…”

3. It is NOT a given that the person whose name is on the letter did not write it. All that we know is that another person participated in some capacity in putting it together. It was, of course, not written by a revisionist (what a strange suggestion?).

4. Why on earth does the primate need to “own up” to anything. He wrote an appropriately worded letter in private to Dr. Poon who then proceeded to publish it publicly. The primate in question does not need to own up to anything at all. Rather, Dr. Poon owes an apology for publishing a private letter.

There is no subtext here bluenarrative. you are simply making unsubstantiated assertions with regard to the letter.

Goodness gracious, I really hope it isn’t tinfoil hat time.
Whatever the case may be, you should know:
It is exceedingly easy for e-mail “headers”, which contain the “from” and “reply-to” parts of a mail, to be forged - much more easy than hacking or tapping routers - this requires very, very little specialist knowledge.  The metadata of a wordprocessor document can also be forged.  So theoretically, this could have come from anyone who had Dr. Poon’s e-mail address.
Perhaps a windows user could instruct Dr. Poon on how he can view the full e-mail headers of this e-mail and send them to someone to do a bit of traceroute analysis to try to determine from where the e-mail was sent?  This would already some kind of indication regarding where the e-mail came from.
If there are genuine suspicions that e-mail headers and documents are being forged, parties should be made aware of this fact and encouraged to write back to the other parties involved for confirmation that the e-mail is genuine before posting open letters as responses.

Also, sorry for posting above, wrong thread, I had multiple tabs open to SF cross-referencing things and typed my reply in the wrong tab.

Fr. Matt:
I’ll make a small donation to the charity of your choice if you end the flogging of this dead horse.

If not, we can all read what Guardian commentor, David Brown, has to say and take a few more whacks.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2008/01/over_the_last_few_years.html

Peace,

wow, you go to sleep on the other side of the world and when you wake up….

Thanks for coming over here Gregory, we really appreciate the input. I am increasingly coming round to Sarah’s point of view, that absence from Lambeth is effectively absence from the Communion as a whole. That used to disturb me, but the more I consider it the more I see that it’s the only sensible option.

We are all, I trust, Christian first and Anglican second. We are Anglicans (at least I know that I am) because we see no inconsistency with our Christian faith and cherish the fellowship with others that it brings. Where the Communion walks away from the faith then we can no longer be a part of it.

This is where the ACI, and others like them, have made their big mistake. They mistake the Communion for the Church and the two are not the same. We will always be members of the Church but need to realise that it may lead us to renouncing membership of the Communion. This is, of course, one of the problems with the Windsor Report - it also fails to make the distinction, and raises institutional unity to the same level as Christian unity; indeed it equates the two.

So I end up being more and more excited about gafcon - it’s focus is our common Christian faith, not our Anglicanism. Because of that, though, I suspect that it will (amongst other things) bring about a revival in our assessment of Anglicanism, but not the Communion as it currently stands.

Of course I don’t have the benefit of an Australian education but would appreciate having the benefit of you in the Communion David.

This has indeed been a wonderful and illuminating thread, thanks particularly to the participation of ++Venables and Dr+ Radner.  Another coup for the SF team!

Usually, though, threads deteriorate when they wander off-topic; in this case, the mostly-off-topic portions are the most significant and interesting.  This is not surprising, given the unprepossessing character of the topic itself:

In response to a blog posting by Dr+ Poon, a post which itself may not have been the ideal way to express concerns in the first place, an <font color=red>unknown</font> Primate sent a private note to Dr+ P in which he expressed himself more forcefully than is normal in public.  Dr+ P for <font color=red>unknown</font> reasons posted the letter along with his own comments, and then for equally <font color=red>unknown</font> reasons (he may have thought better of it, it may have been suggested by a colleague, the sender may have corresponded further, ??) removed it.  The identity of the Primate remains <font color=red>unknown</font>, indeed whether or not the note was genuine or a forgery is <font color=red>unknown</font>, and so on.  We can speculate endlessly and utterly fruitlessly about all this; the only valuable information we can glean from the event has to do with a) the inadvisability of either writing or posting anything when you’re mad as Hell, and b) the need for continuous and extensive consultation within the orthodox in the Communion.  Neither of these conclusions is exactly earthshaking. 

So let’s put all this to rest and go off-topic again.  Will 2008 be yet another year of unmitigated disaster for the Cubs?

Of course I don’t have the benefit of an Australian education but would appreciate having the benefit of you in the Communion David. 

too kind. Bottom line, you and I will always have the benefit of each other as Christian brothers - no matter what denomination we end up in. That’s what we all need to keep remembering.

We are all, I trust, Christian first and Anglican second.  We are
Anglicans (at least I know that I am) because we see no inconsistency with our Christian faith and cherish the fellowship with others that it brings.  Where the Communion walks away from the faith then we can no longer be a part of it. 

Amen, David!  It is precisely that Communion failure along with the loss of trust that ++Gregory described above that make GAFCON both appealing and necessary.  The ACI arguments for everyone going to Lambeth one more time seem both naive and almost desperate. 

However this all ends, I join Pageantmaster in wanting to be in the same Communion with the likes of you and ++Gregory.

Wow….
Bishop Venables.

Wow.
I think this is the closest I’ve ever been to a celebrity.
I’ve met a few in person, but never gotten a glimpse inside their minds and hearts, as Bishop Venables so generously allows here on Stand Firm.

Just…
wow.

I would like to offer a comment that could easily be misunderstood: The conversation on this thread between Abp. Gregory and others was merely a normal conversation among Christians.

However, the reason we have found it so heartening and so amazing is that we have not been living in a time when such conversation among fellow humble Christians has been normative. We have been living in a war zone where too many “church” leaders attack us or say only very strange things. Having a blog conversation between a real church leader who wants to see the flock and the faith protected and nurtured and who knows that he and his fellow leaders need prayers from that same flock is startlingly uncommon. Hopefully, as realignment continues we will rediscover this kind of mutual fellowship or real “communion” of believers on an ever-widening scale. Perhaps this kind of conversation will become less uncommon.

#279, Bill Cool,

Ditto.  I share the same hope and expectation.  But there are many aspects of normal life that go by the wayside during times of war.  And there is absolutely no doubt that this is such a time.

David Handy+

#275 Craig—Good words of wisdom. Thank you.

Rev. Dr. Handy,

Humbly, with respect to your

occasional outbursts of hyperbole

I would offer two comments:

First, I am having a somewhat difficult time detecting which parts of your comment might reasonably be considered hyperbolic, unless you are referring to the imprecation immediately preceding your signature block. The remainder of your post seems eminently reasonable—although I am in no way qualified to render an opinion on the feasibility of the assembled primates “taking over” the Lambeth Conference.

Second, I particularly like your emphasis on a more formal conciliar approach to the resolution of doctrinal issues. I have had similar thoughts myself, but they have been sufficiently unformed as to inhibit me from posting them.

Blessings and kind regards,
Martial Artist

#282, Martial Artist,

Well, thank you!  I take that as quite a compliment.  Actually, I’m unsure at this point just which of my many posts that contain some rather extreme statements you may be referring to.  There are so many possible candidates…(grin). 

But certainly, I would admit to hyperbole when I give in to the temptation to wishing that the liberal bishops (who can only be described as “Worthy Opponents” by a considerable stretch of the imagination and by granting lots of elacticity to the English tongue), i.e., who tirelessly promote the pro-gay agenda and ruthlessly persecute the orthodox remnant in North America and who therefore oppose my plans for Lambeth and the AC, well, it’s certainly hyperbole when I wish that they be “tarred and feathered” or even sent “to hell.”  Those sentiments are clearly over the top and exaggerated.  I’ll freely conceded that.

As for the rest, well, I’ll let others judge just how extreme and fanatical, or just plain utopian, my hopes and dreams may be.  But if you yourself see little that unreasonable about them, may I suggest that you promptly apply for membership in my growing fan club.  It sounds like you might fit in rather well and find yourself among kindred spirits.

As I’ve told selah, Prophet Micaiah, bluenarrative and others, those who are among the first 100 to join the NRAFC will find that the annual membership dues aare waived, and they will be enrolled as official “charter members” of this elite new movement.  Why Br_er Rabbit (the V-P) is setting our new official NRAFC welbsite as we speak.  So keep watching for further details…

David Handy+
Founder, NRAFC

Father Handy,

You neglected to explain to Martial Artist that when the NRAFC meets in person, as opposed to meeting online, unlimited quantities of sublime alcoholic beverages are supplied to all such members who desire them, free of charge, courtesy of ME.    Appropriate substitions are also provided, free of charge, to members who request them.

The NRAFC is an awesome fellowship. I would, personally, be delighted to have Martial Artist join us. And, for HIM, I would arrange for barrels of Laphroiage to be present at our next face-to-face meeting. And, perhaps, I can also make arrangements for Father Richard Neuhaus to be a guest speaker at our gathering. 

#284, bluenarrative,

Well, what can I say?  I’m quite overwhelmed at your generosity of spirit (and funds).  But now I must confess that I’m beginning to wonder if I’ll have to hire a part-time secretary to process all the membership applications that may come flooding in after the word gets out about how much fun (and alcohol) is to be had at NRAFC meetings.  Some things are better kept secret.

And as for having Fr. Richard John Neuhaus address our growing fellowship.  Well, that would be quite a coup.  I suppose you’ve gathered by now that I’m a prominent member of the RJNFC (i.e., the Richard John Neuhaus Fan Club).  Boy, wouldn’t it be great to have an Anglican equivalent to that splendid journal, First Things??

Bluenarrative, I’ve been keeping my eye on you.  If you will submit the necessary background materials, I’ll be happy to forward on to the CCP bishops your nomination for a cabinet position in the NRAFC.  You can choose, what will it be?  Secretary?  Or if your funds are so unlimited, perhaps Treasurer?  Yeah, let’s make it Treasurer.

David Handy+
Founder of the NRAFC, and ever prouder of that glorious group

A note on GAFCON: the conference announcement is now up on the AC official website-
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/digest/index.cfm/2008/1/2/Global-Anglican-Future-Conference-planned-for-the-Holy-Land-in-June-2008
Sorry, that was a huge- if I can do this right, this should also work
http://tinyurl.com/2qlmgc

when the NRAFC meets in person,

would that be the NRAFCCON?  Having a CON is the second step of 3 steps in becoming a recognized orthodox Anglican organization. (The first, of course, being to identify an acronym).  Now, you only need the PB to mention you in an open letter and you are all set.

PS- will there be an associate membership for thurible wielding Anglo Catholics?

Father Handy,

Would you mind terribly if I were to humbly request appointment as Secretary of War? (I know; I know— the modern style is “Secretary of Defense,” but, surely, part of our calling as catholic and orthodox Anglicans is to recover “ancient usage.” Right?

tjmcmahon,  I am a thurible-wielding low-churchman. I do not think that the Anglo-Catholics should have a monopoly on incense! I actually love the stuff! 

tjmcmahon.  More to the pint, perhaps, is the fact that in the NRAFC the Anglo-Catholics are on an equal footing with low-church types, like me. That’s the whole point of the NEW REFORMATION.

On a more serious note… I was over at Peter Ould’s web site earlier today. And I posted one of those thinking-out-loud sort of comments that seem to enrage so many people here on SF.

In the course of doing so, I sort of spontaneously threw out the idea that perhaps, strictly speaking in Biblical metaphors, one cannot really “shake the dust off one’s feet” if one is not actually ON THE DOORSTEP, so to speak, of the house where the Gospel that we bear has been rejected. In other words, is it really possible to “shake the dust off one’s feet” if one is positioned thousands of miles away from the house that has rejected the Gospel.

This gets back to my ONE (small, but primary) reservation about GAFCON—I think that the only proper way to create a non-Canterbury centered Communion is THROUGH Lambeth. And in the course of grappling with this reservation of mine, I hit upon this particular metaphorical question. Anybody care to comment? You can see my full comment over on Peter’s site.

bluenarrative,

I couldn’t have said it better myself.  So, yes, of course, you may consider yourself duly appointed as the NRAFC Secretary of War (subject to confirmation, as noted, by the bishops of the CCP).

And tjmcmachon, no need to apply for mere associate membership.  Bluenarrative is right, we love incense at the NRAFC, though we also accept applications from those allergic to the stuff (whether physically or theologically).  If you haven’t noticed, I’m a priest of the “Anglo-Catholic” Diocese of Albany.  Please note: I only put that phrase in quotation marks in deference to those who think (wrongly, I’d contend) that a diocese that allows woman priests doesn’t deserve the label Anglo-Catholic, no matter how high church it might be in general.

So keep watch in the mail for your membership packet from the NRAFC.  And keep an eye out too for that new NRAFC website that Br_er Rabbit is working on setting up for us.  Welcome aboard!

David Handy+
(Dr. N, eat your heart out!)

Father Handy,  Do you know Christopher Brown in Albany?

bluenarrative states:
I am a thurible-wielding low-churchman

I’m not sure if this is an oxymoron or proves that there is hope for us all.

Peace,

I hope it means that there is hope for all of us. That is how I intended it to be understood, at least. 

Now where is that pesky little smiley I meant to put at the end of my post to bluenarrative.  Hmmmm.  Oh, here it is.    Now if I could only put it up there where I wanted it. 

Peace,

Go thee unto T19 for more from Abp. Venables-
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/8926/
also in your email from the AAC

Thanks for posting that brief interview of Bishop Gregory.  These are words that the ACI and all its friends do not want to hear—but they reflect the reality. 

I noted above that the arguments for everyone going to Lambeth one more time seem both naive and almost desperate.  What ++Gregory says here is far more of a positive take on why it’s time for GAFCON and for moving on.  Listen to his words:

  The Anglican Communion has already unraveled, and things are even further away from resolving the deadlock. Under these conditions, Lambeth will not only fall far short of anything positive but actually make things worse. Perhaps, looking at it from the outside, it looks easy but inside it’s not only labyrinthine, but there is no centre to get to. It’s an ecclesiastical Alice through the Looking Glass, but there’s no humour and little real love. 

Rev. Dr. Handy,

In reply to your comment [283],I was referring to the post in which the quote I cited was contained, specifically [237].

Furthermore, in light of the exceedingly generous offers from bluenarrative (both Laphroaig and RJN+—have I, unbeknownst to myself, died and been conveyed directly to paradise? ), I am most honored to accept your invitation. Please consider me a member of the New Reformation Advocate Fan Club.

Finally, should bluenarrative require an Assistant Secretary of War for Naval Matters, I would humbly offer my services. A copy of my CV is yours upon request.

Blessings and kind regards,
Martial Artist

———————-
P.S. Please be aware that “tar and feathers” is substantially less uncomfortable than more usually prescribed treatment for those suffering from “mineral deficiencies,” which, I think, fully applies to some of the more pugnacious of the leadership of TEC.

#292, bluenarrative,

As for your question about Fr. Christopher Brown in my home diocese, I regret to say that I only know him through his regular column in the diocesan newsletter; the column is always interesting and often enlightening.  We’ve never met in person.  But I hear only good things about him (he’s the Rector in Postdam, NY, if I recall correctly).  If you’re implying that Fr. Brown would be a natural to join as a member of the NRAFC, I agree.

David Handy+
(Boy, you stop for dinner, and you miss a lot in the meantime)

#298, Martial Artist,

Welcome aboard!  Glad to have you among us.  Yes, it is a lively group.  Perhaps not quite paradise, but close.

But since all this frivolity threatens to overwhelm the purpose of this thread, let me take this opportunity to say that while the NRAFC does indeed practice lubricating our heavy discussions with generous quantities of beverages that loosen the tongue (and perhaps dull the brain), we are also committed to earnest prayer for our beloved Anglican Communion.  I fear that we may easily forget just how desperate is the need to hold up ++Venables and his fellow orthodox primates.  The pressure on them is beyond imagining.

Perhaps, therefore, it might be appropriate to remind us all of the wonderful collect we use on Friday nights (and yes, it’s now Friday on this thread that started several days ago).  So I’d like to offer it to the Lord with special intentions for the primates, and not least the much esteemed Bp. of Argentina.

“Lord Jesus Christ, by your death you took away the sting of death.  Grant to us your servants so to follow in faith where you have led the way, that we may at length fall asleep peacefully in you…and wake up in your likeness!” 

May Anglicanism similarly go through this sharing in the Savior’s saving death and resurrection.  May we be able somehow to rest in the peace that He gives us (primates, bishops, priests, deacons, and laity alike), and awake to find that God has done what we could never have imagined, and made all things new.  Grant this for the sake of your love, O Lord.  Amen.

David Handy+
Given to occasional sermonizing and piety, as well as hyperbole

Amen to that prayer!

I think it safe to assume that ALL of the membership of the NRAFC have been laboring in truly sacrificial prayer, on behalf of the Primates and Bishops. I know that I have.

Father Handy,  That particular collect put me in mind of the traditional way to bury priests in England. Are you aware of the traditional manner in which English priests are laid to rest? I believe that this is still the way it is done over there, though I have not been paying much attention to every-day practices in the Church of England for some time now. But this particular custom goes back to long before the English Reformation, and I would be surprised if they have abandoned it wholesale.

As you probably know, traditionally, in England (and elsewhere), the bodies of lay people are laid in the ground along an east-west axis—headstones are placed at the western end of the grave, with the head of the corpse closest to the headstone, and the feet of the corpse furthest from the headstone.

When an English priest is buried, however, the body is placed in the ground the other way around—feet towards the headstone, head at the easternmost side of the grave.

Lay people are buried with their head to the west and feet to the east, in recognition of the fact that when Jesus returns to this world (awakening the dead when He appears), He will first appear on the Mt. of Olives. Thus, the rising dead, upon arising from their graves, will already be facing the east.

But an English priest is laid in the ground the other way around, so that, when he rises from dead, HE WILL GET HIS FIRST LOOK AT THE LORD REFLECTED IN THE EYES OF HIS PARISHONERS.

It’s a rather beautiful custom, don’t you think?

I am not sure if I have explained all of this this in a coherent way, or not. Nor am I even sure when I went into this at all, except that your posting of that collect put me in mind of it.

#301, bluenarrative,

No, I regret to say that I had never heard of that particular burial custom.  It’s charming.  You see, folks, spending all this time at blogging is not a total waste.  Just look at all the new things you learn in the process.

But I note that we are now at the point of over 300 comments on this thread, and it seems to be winding down at last.  I think I’ll sign off here and pay more attention elsewhere.  Thanks to all, but especially ++Venables.

David Handy+

In the event that anyone should want a direct hyplerlink to the two comments by bluenarrative, which he mentioned in [290], above, they are here and here.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Fr. David re #232

3.  A MUCH STENGTHENED version of the Covenant is pushed through, over strenuous western objections.

  That objection will probably not come from Common Cause and sympathetic bishops. I expect they will stand in full agreement.

4.  We desperately need an international body that can nullify the legislative actions of wayward provinces and declare them “unconstitutional”

Wonderful idea.  Here the ACoC needs to exercise its own authority.  A secular parallel is the CEO (++Fred) that ignores the shareholder vote (General Synod) and the district manager (+Ingham) who defies company policy (no SSB).

And my thanks ++Greg for accepting my Brother in Christ (and friend) +Harding.  God willing I can look forward one day to his laying on of hands.