A Troubling Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury

Matt+, I’ve not read this yet as carefully as I would like.  I’m tired after a long week.  But I want to raise a question that comes to mind as I read your article here.

While I appreciate your teaching and clarification about the difference between exegesis and isogesis, particularly with regard to Scripture (truly a very helpful distinction—thanks!), I’m not so sure we should be quick to exegete ++Rowan’s text as closely as you do.  I think we need to keep in mind to whom ++Rowan was writing and the form of his communication.  I don’t think a letter to the other Primates deserves the same word for word exegesis as a Scriptural text.  I feel a lot safer keeping the analysis focused on the big picture as many commentaries have already done.

++Rowan has probably communicated privately with ++Orombi.  He does not mention ++Orombi’s statement in his letter, and so yes, while that statement by ++Orombi forms part of the context to what he wrote, I’m not sure you can claim that ++Rowan is specifically addressing ++Orombi’s exact words.

What we know based on ++Rowan’s letter is all big picture stuff:

1) There is concern about KJS as the sole representative of ECUSA.  Alternate voices need to be heard.  THAT IS HUGE, truly.

2) Williams wants to give KJS a hearing.  He is not going to reject +Schori out of hand nor allow other Primates to do so.  Fair enough… and really much better for the reasserting cause, if (as for example at ACC Nottingham) ECUSA is given full opportunity to make its best case and yet that is still judged as lacking and unresponsive to the concerns of the rest of the Communion.  ECUSA could not say after Notthingham that they were not heard.  Nor will KJS be able to say that and play the “martyr” card after Tanzania.

3) Williams is inviting the input of the other Primates into the question of Lambeth—invitations and content.  Very important as well.  The Primates truly ARE beginning to function as something of a “council of advice” and being given a much more important role in the leadership of the Communion.  A very needed thing.

Anyway, I do appreciate much of what you wrote.  And perhaps will address some of your more specific points later when I’ve re-read it mroe closely.  But I fear that by going into such a “micro-analysis” of ++Rowan’s letter too much of the big picture is lost and we enter the realm into speculation and interpretation that the letter was never designed to bear.

The burden is on the shepherds to prove to the owner that they have kept the sheep.  Likewise the burden is on the ECUSA bishops to prove that they have faithfully tended the flock.  Unlike in an American court of law, I don’t see there being a presumption of innocence of ECUSA.

Rather, there is already a prima facie case of wrong-doing.  A group of peers have already stated in clear terms that wrong has been done.  The fact that a full quarter (or more) of the church is on the verge of rebellion, and almost half have already left, is a stinging indictment.  When, in the last 150 years, has such great anxiety and dissatisfaction haunted this Communion?

None of us can predict rightly what will occur in February.  But we do know this:  the Communion is on the verge of chaos.  People, within, and without ECUSA and the Communion are sick to death of the drama.  Even the most willfully blind can see that.  Unless real, tangible action is taken right now, the situation will quickly move past the point of control.

My prayer, and belief, is that the primates know this and that February will be decisive.

ABP Williams’ statement is made in a way so as not to prejudice what will occur at the meeting.

If I am right, or I am wrong, either way, we have nothing to fear.

The language here is crucial. The Presiding Bishop will attend not as a visitor or observer but in her official capacity as “Primate of the Episcopal Church.” In other words, she will be “seated.”

When I read this, I find none of the specificity you do, Matt.  It reads as good ole Anglican fudge.

You are interpreting “seated” at the full meeting as the meaning of the +++ABC’s invitation of Schori, the primate of TEC.  It is a natural enough read, I will grant you that.  But it is still possible that for whatever reason—could be the +++ABC’s own intention or the protests of the GS primates—she will be there for the pre-meeting but not the full meeting. 

You might rightly ask, why then identify her at the primate of TEC?  Because she is.  And this is a primates meeting.  If he had said I will seat her as the primate of TEC, fully included at any and all gatherings, then you have the meaning you interpreted.  But minus ‘seated’ and specificity about what meetings, etc., the +++ABC, in good ole Anglo-fudge fashion, has left out several essential bits of the puzzle.

On the strength of the text alone, I am afraid it is you who is reading the following inference into the text:

Whatever the pre-meeting may be, it will not be determinative of the Presiding Bishop’s presence or status.

Just because he calls the pre-meeting a time to “review” the situation tells you nothing—zero—about what actually will go on there.  Any attempt to surmise it is just groundless speculation.  Review is a mild word; but do not expect strong or precise words in a bureaucratic document, designed to bring as many people—many of them fighting enemies—to the same meeting.  To do so unnecessarily jeopardizes the desired end.  If he even suspects she will be dismissed, he does not want to tip his hand of that because she won’t bother to come. 

The pre-meeting specifically is that time of speaking face-to-face about the crisis in the Communion.  It is before the main agenda, so that gives rise to the possibility of some ‘trial’ or what not.  Again, to say there will be a trial is reading that into the document, too.  The fact remains, whether +++Rowan means it this way or not, there remains the possibility that ++KJS will be asked to leave after that point.  He has neither ruled that or or ruled it in with this letter.

Matt, I don’t know if you have ever lived in the UK or had substantial dealings with the British, but I feel you are expecting a level of clarity and precision here that I often found wanting in my fellow congregants in nearly 10 years in a Church of England pro-cathedral.  And if you don’t find it, you assume the worst interpretation possible.  I can say with absolute certainty this is British evasive, muck-on-through rhetoric, designed to do the dirty deed of setting up a contentious meeting but not to predetermine its outcome.  It is bureaucratically and oh-so-Britishly vague on purpose.  In my opinion, the exegetical error here is to overlook that very important bit of context.

You have once again hit on why to me Camp Allen I and II is troubling to me.  Gray and Parsley, who bans Priests or parishes from joining the Network on threat of sanction, and others will claim the cloak of a Windsor Bishop, adding credence to those that say that the orthodox wing is split on whether TEC should be disciplined, much less Schori++ barred.  Its a trap.

Orombi++ and his allies were crystal clear, they would not sit with Schori++ and demanded an ACN representative in her stead.  They have been steadfast in their support of the reasserters in the US and the least the reasserters can do is support them by not doing anything to undermine their position.

Karen,

Thanks.

Do notice what you said in your response. You said that we should pay attention to the “bigger picture.”

But where does this “bigger picture” come from? In almost every analysis I have read, it is completely imagined.

Exegesis is a general methodologica principle that applies not only to the bible but to all literature. I just used the scriptures because they are so familiar to us.

But if we are going to have any understanding of the situation, I suggest that it is far better to base that understanding on actual published material rather than assumed conversations. I think we should focus on what we know rather than what we do not know.

The only way this can be viewed as a positive letter is if you buy into imaginitive scenarios built on not much more than wishes. Nice wishes, and I hope they are true, but wishes all the same.

OK, Matt, this is off topic, but you have begged a question that I want to pursue with you sometime.  Given your polemic against eisogesis, which I affirm, I am dying to know how you read John.  I want to throw Raymond Brown, Louis Martyn, and Moody Smith at you and learn the boundaries of your concerns about eisogesis in reading John.  Oh, and also Revelation of John.  Perhaps this will require a meal together….

In a more conciliatory vein, let me add, Matt, that I agree whole-heartedly with two points you make:

1) The text does leave the possibility open that ++Lee or some other center-left individual would be invited.  The ‘whole range’ or ‘spectrum’ language does indicate a wider field than merely Network or Windsor bishops.

2) I also agree with you that if the meeting is not to be a failure for the orthodox cause, the GS primates must press their cause very firmly and not back-down from their demand not to sit with/to unseat ++KJS.  I think they see this meeting as the time for discipline and setting up a new province (or some such arrangement).  I think +++Rowan wants to avoid that like the plague and would try to force some compromise like allowing both ++KJS and, say, ++Duncan to attend the meeting.  I think that would be most unfortunate if the GS primates allowed such an arrangment.  It would mean the triumph of Anglican fudge when, finally, mercifully, we need some decision.

Matt, there is great hope here. We simply need to see how this plays put. Again ABC must be a honest broker or all is lost. I would admit that is probably lost already in terms of TEC but all attempts must be made to give TEC a chance to return to sanity.
Bob Richenburg, Free Evangelical

Steve,

you said:

“Just because he calls the pre-meeting a time to “review” the situation tells you nothing—zero—about what actually will go on there.  Any attempt to surmise it is just groundless speculation.”

actually no. It is not groundless. In fact it is far far more grounded than the dominant speculation that this pre-meeting will be a “trial”. Why? Because it is grounded in the fact that the ABC has indicated that KJS is going to attend the formal meeting in her capacity of primate.

That is the plain meaning of the text. TO say that this does not mean she will be “seated” is assuming far too much. You asserted that but beyond pointing to British diplospeak with which I am actually quite familiar, you provided no evidence.

The evidence for my view, that she is going to be seated is right there in the plain reading of the text. The ABC has decided to invite her to attend the primates meeting.

That is that. There is no question that she will attend unless you make the question up out of thin air.

Matt,
Like everyone else in the entire world, I wish Rowan Williams knew how to communicate in a manner less annoyingly Delphic.  But I’m optimistic about this meeting for two reasons.
 
One is that I’m not sure that Dr. Williams is as in control of affairs anymore as many believe.  The other is Dromantine.

Consider.  That meeting almost broke up until the Global South was granted the sanctions against the US and Canada mentioned in the Dromantine Communique.  Given TEC’s completely inadequate GenCon 2006 response to the Windsor Report, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to suggest that the Global South will demand much harsher sanctions against TEC this time, up to and including its complete suspension from international Anglican affairs.

If Mrs. Schori pleads polity, as she no doubt will, the primates may well demand that she be immediately suspended from primatial gatherings until GenCon 2009, right now being as good a time as any, and we will recognize Bishop Duncan over there as America’s Anglican primate until such time as TEC repents, making him in effect a temporary primate(it would be a lovely touch if Jack Iker was one of the invited guests and he got the nod as US co-primate but I guess that won’t happen).

At the very least, the primates could demand that Bishop Duncan be allowed into the regular meeting as a full participant, thus effectively making him a co-primate with Mrs. Schori and granting de facto recognition to the Network.

I’ll admit that a lot of this is wishful thinking.  But I believe that Dr. Akinola, Dr. Orombi and the rest of the orthodox primates realize that to a certain extent, they were rolled at Dromantine and won’t let it happen again.  And by having people other than Katharine Schori physically present, Dr. Williams may leaving himself and the Communion open to something he might not want to see happen.  My take, for what it’s worth.

Anyway, great analysis as always.

My only contention, Matt+, is that the letter allows for more possible outcomes than the one you find—which is, I will concede—the most natural reading.  In a strict sense, you are right that. . .

There is no evidence in the text for supposing that the Presiding Bishop will be sent away from the Tanzania meeting, no evidence to support the idea that the pre-meeting will be a “trial” of some sort, and no evidence that the three bishops invited to represent the spectrum of American thought will be orthodox.

.  .  .but your argument is an old debater’s sly move, to shift the burden of proof and require your opponent to prove a negative.  However unlikely by the plain reading of the text, the possibility remains that +KJS would be forced to leave at the pre-meeting.  It is the only place where the GS primates demands can, and must be settled.  So either she walks or they do or—worst of all, they blink.  Those are the options.  And all +++Rowan has done has arranged a setting in which this decision is taken face-to-face rather than, as he said, in the impersonal medium of statements being issued back and forth.

No tricks Steve, I promise.

The burden of proof necessarily falls on the one making an assertion not based on the plain reading of the text.

Of course, there is the possibility you suggest. Anything is “possible”.

But there is nothing in the letter itself pointing to that possibility.

The reason that hope exists is because I hope, as do you, that the primates of the GS will press hard and strong at the meeting itself; that they will hold to the plain meaning of their letters and published communiques

If so, then we will have a good chance.

But the letter, on its face, calls the primates to set their cards on the table. The ABC is not acceeding to their requests. So, the question is, are they serious? I think they are. And so I do have hope.

I just do not think the letter itself is a good one or reason for optimism with regard to the ABC’s attitude.

I have been following the ABC’s letters, essays, and writings very closely for the last three years. I have had a great deal of confidence because up and until GC2006 he has been very clear that if the WR as articulated by the DC is not complied with TEC will have chosen to walk away.

After GC2006, the language slowly began to hedge a bit. I think his latest is the clearest evidence of that hedging.

Dare I say we have—gulp—agreement here, Matt+?!  Or at least, in part.

I agree with you, that your reading is the plainest and most natural. 

I agree that it is not a great letter for the orthodox cause, but I do not think it is as bleak as you do.

I am not convinced that he is hedging because he does affirm the Windsor requirements, voices concern about them having been met, implies that not inviting her was a distinct possibility, etc.  These are all factors in favor of ‘orthodox optimism.’

Since you agree that it is at least possible that ++KJS might be asked to leave after the pre-meeting, then I think that is all the grounds for hope the orthodox need right now.  After all, our cause is one grounded not in the words of men, however necessary those words are to see God’s purposes accomplished in our church.  Whether +++Rowan wants it or not, this has fallen on his watch and I still think he is on the side of orthodox ecclesiology.  That alone does not bode well for TEC or ++KJS.

Matt:
While I agree with Karen that we ought not to analyze Rowan’s letter quite so closely as we would Scripture, I would suggest that you are reading the letter through a pessimistic lens.  Consider these extracts:

In other words, questions remain to be considered about the Episcopal Church’s relations with other Provinces (though some Provinces have already made their position clear). I do not think it wise or just to take any action that will appear to bring that consideration and the whole process of our shared discernment to a premature end.

He states here that there are serious questions about whether TEC has conformed with the Dromantine requests, but that this is properly an issue for the Primates as a whole to decide, and not for individual judgments.

This is why I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the elected Primate of the Episcopal Church to attend the forthcoming meeting.

Note the connector “that is why” and the passive formulation - “decided not to withhold an invitation”.  I think that all Williams is saying here is “innocent until proven guilty.”  It is well known that Williams wants to avoid unilateral actions on his part, so I don’t see this as a problem.

I believe it is important that she be given a chance both to hear and to speak and to discuss face to face the problems we are confronting together. We are far too prone to talk about these matters from a distance, without ever having to face the human reality of those from whom we differ.

Williams here is simply advocating due process.

However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion, I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.

A few items to take note of:
(1) “however” - Matt, have you ever apologized to your wife and then used either “however” or “but”?  I have to my wife (early in the marriage ) and am always told that using either word negates the apology.  Same principle here.  Williams says he won’t withhold KJS’s invitation because it is up to the Primates to decide on discipline, then says “however” there will be a review of “the situation” as the first order of business.  That sounds, to me, like Williams saying that he personally won’t withhold the invitation, but “the situation” will be reviewed prior to the rest of business.
(2) “widespread effects of this in the Communion” - Williams here explains why this review is necessary.
(3) “before the rest of our formal business” - implying that this review is part of the formal process of the Primates’ Meeting.
(4) “in which the situation may be reviewed” - depends what is meant by “the situation” (i.e. TEC generally or KJS’ continued presence at the Meeting or both??).  Also depends on what is meant by “reviewed” (i.e. a recounting of events or a review of whether KJS’ invitation should be withdrawn??).

The Episcopal Church is not in any way a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it.

I see this as a swipe against KJS and the TEC heirarchy Matt.  Williams is essentially saying that KJS can’t be relied upon to give an honest and complete assessment of the situation within TEC.  That said, I would suspect that you will see a Network leader, a Windsor bishop and perhaps either Iker or Schofield.

I am sure that other Primates, like myself, will welcome the clear declarations by several bishops and diocesan conventions (including those dioceses represented at the Camp Allen meeting earlier this year) of their unequivocal support for the process and recommendations of the Windsor Report. There is much to build upon here. There are many in TEC who are deeply concerned as to how they should secure their relationships with the rest of the Communion; I hope we can listen patiently to these anxieties.

Williams seems to be suggesting that the real issue is how to include the Camp Allen bishops in the Communion, which implies, does it not, that he is seriously acknowledging the possibility that TEC generally won’t be in Communion.
You may be correct to view this with a pessimist’s lens, but the words are ambiguous enough to suggest that Williams is suggesting some sort of reckoning to take place regarding discipline against TEC.

Matt,
In spite of your robust effort here, I think Sarah Hey has outdone you in the quest to be most pessimistic about Tanzania.  And am I mistaken in my belief that I read this last week?  Is this an update of an earlier article?

I follow your analysis all the way until you seem to conclude that, since the letter did not telegraph the unseating of ECUSA, no discipline should be expected.

I agree with you about the pre-meeting.  I don’t see it as a trial but rather, in the spirit of the Rule of Paul, an effort to hear the suppressed voices within ECUSA that would not normally be heard by the entire gathered body.  It gets them (the additional guest bishops) to Tanzania even though they have no official warrant to attend otherwise.

I am more optimistic because I believe Rowan Williams has acted consistently with his own academic writings about life together as a community of forgivenness throughout this period.  I am not sure your exegesis of just these documents tells the whole story.  Remember, the Primates have a history that extends back to the Lambeth Commission on this issue.  I refer to Matt 18.  In many forms of communication, ECUSA was implored not to do what she has done and then offered the opportunity to repent of her sin once she ignored those pleas.  The official call to repentence came at Dromantine, when the Primates collectively amended and approved the Windsor Report.  The next step in the liturgy of reconciliation begun at Lambeth is for those same primates, acting collectively, to consider together ECUSA’s response to their offer of discipline (contained in TWR).

So it makes sense to me that the duly elected PB will be seated in order to formally communicate ECUSA’s response, to answer questions from the gathered primates, and to hear their response.  My point is that there seems no reason to me that the Rowan Williams should have telegraphed a decision in advance precisely because the decision is not his to make.  It is the task of the gathered body to discern in communion.  So it is altogether reasonable for the PB to be seated at Tanzania upon arrival, but for the status of ECUSA to change by the end of the deliberations.  Indeed, I think Steve Lake correctly names the three possible outcomes.

You are right when you say the letter doesn’t contain the hope that some have regarding the new province.  It seems to me unreasonable to expect that such a letter would do any more than it does.  You don’t determine the score of a game before it is played.  And certainly you don’t determine the score in the letter that invites the players to game.

Steve,

I think we are in agreement, and, possibly, I even possibibly agree with Craig in the sense that there is hope for the primates meeting. The hope in Tanzania lies primarily, well, only, in what the GS primates do. Will they all show up? If they do, there is a good chance for discipline. If not, I dont think it will happen.

The point of my article was that the letter itself is not cause for hope. It was, in fact, quite depressing.

The hope lies in the GS primates.

Mu understanding is the same as the Global South primates: “In our Ireland meeting the primates suspended the Episcopal Church of America and the Canadian Church until they repent.”

So, why is KJS being seated as anything more than an observer to anything beyond a pre-meeting?

I hope this doesn’t sound snarky.  It’s meant sincerely.  But Matt+ (and others) do please be careful:

The hope lies in the GS primates.

Our hope MUST stay centered in Christ.  Primates can and will fail us.  But God is still Lord of His church and He has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  I’m sure most don’t need the reminder, really, but I do get nervous in the lead up to such meetings at the expectations we put on specific people and specific outcomes.  God can, I and believe will work in ways beyond what we expect and imagine. 

Some of the current discussion of this letter and other texts in the lead up to Tanzania seem to be setting reasserters up for huge disappointment and declaring the meeting a failure if KJS is not shown the door.  Please let’s go into this with something of an open mind as to what might be desirable in terms of the outcome, and above all be in much prayer that the Lord will guide and direct the hearts of those seeking Him and eager to do His will.  Too many of us, myself often included, seem to be putting ourselves in the position of God or the Primates and assume we know what the best outcome is for the Communion.

Karen B.—AMEN!!!!

Karen,

To say that our hope lies with the primates does not, of couse, preclude the core principle that our final and only true hope lies in Christ and for that reason there is always hope.

At the same time, we cannot imagine and should not imagine that our desires are his. We desire the continued life of Anglicanism. Does the Lord? Are we a dying branch? I think not, but I do not know. It depends, I think, on what the Lord determines to do through the primates.

As for setting reasserters up for disappointment, that is precisely what I am trying to cure. I think most of the latest analyses have been based on imagination rather than reality.

I am not convinced that he is hedging because he does affirm the Windsor requirements, voices concern about them having been met, implies that not inviting her was a distinct possibility, etc.  These are all factors in favor of ‘orthodox optimism.’

Since you agree that it is at least possible that ++KJS might be asked to leave after the pre-meeting, then I think that is all the grounds for hope the orthodox need right now.

In reverse order:
- there are many orthodox who now need more than a ‘hope that ++KJS MIGHT be asked to leave’.  The ‘threat’ of and need for discipline has been hanging around since ++Gris confirmed that the consecration of Gene+ would ‘tear the Communion’.  Almost 4 years later, many of us are way past being appeased by a ‘hope’.

Next, if ‘not inviting her was a distinct possibility’ and yet he went ahead and did invite her - despite direct requests from several Primates to the contrary - I can only read this as the ABC taking a clear stance.  In fact, he’s daring the GS Primates (our only allies if we hope to keep Anglicinism worldwide) to eat their words.  Add to this the fact that invites are going to two or three (not just a Network representative) pours salt in this wound.

And the ABC apparently now ‘voicing concern’ about TEC’s having met the WR requirements is too liitle and too late.  GC06 was supposed to be the response.  And it was crystal clear.  Add to this the acceptance by TEC to not send reps to Communion gatherings, means that this invitation actually contradicts the only ‘discipline’ there was.

And to say that he affirms the Windsor requirememnts is to neglect the Dromantine clarfications.

And Matt+ did not even note (although it was probably obvious and did not need to be noted) that the ‘two or three’ other Bishops were not being invited to the meeting - just the ‘review’.  Which means the ABC further ignored the GS requests.

Discouraged, yes!  Pessimistic, yes!

RE: “As for setting reasserters up for disappointment, that is precisely what I am trying to cure.”

Matt+

We’re probably going to be disappointed. We’re finite and like the wild grass of the field, the Lord is eternal and can move in His timing, not ours. Time after time, people have disappointed me, even today I was informed on personal situation that it was not going to be addressed by clergy.

Things maybe very different in ten years, I do not know. Hey, I’ll grant the Lord could do great things in February as well. However, I know my hope must be in Jesus our Christ. If the Lord is willing and shows kindness, hey great, but He could allow things to continue as they have and He would be no less sovereign or loving. We need to be prepared, less we do my favorite trick and struggle with my faith when He choses not to intervene in the way I had hope and prayed.

Hosea 6:6

Exactly my point

I am inclined not to be pessimistic, Matt.

But the real work is done at the local level, not from the top down.  We do need to remember that.  Whatever happens, it’s started local and went global.  We need a little bit of the old Swamp Fox, if you know what I mean.

bb

Firstly a side note - ‘isogesis’, ‘eisogesis’? Unless I’m mistaken, I think the term is ‘eisegesis’. A great term nonetheless Matt, and a helpful caution in the current debate.

On the more substantive issues, I’m in agreement with JamesW above. I think this letter is primarily one of due process, in ABC’s mind. He is consistently conciliar when it comes to major determinations, and does not want to pre-empt the role of the meeting itself, and the committee set up to review TEC’s Gen06 responses. Yet he is all too aware of the mind of a number of provinces, and would know that the Lambeth preparations are significantly dependant on directions from the Primates meeting. I don’t hold high hopes for anything like the resolution and clarity many are expecting or hoping for, but I am optimistic for some significant steps in the direction of taking seriously the concerns of the orthodox in the US and elsewhere, and genuine proposals regarding a voice or representation of some measure within Communion instruments. In short, some encouraging progress, but I doubt whether this will be the determinative watershed some anticipate. Whether such an outcome will satisfy the GS and others wondering how long they can stay in TEC remains to be seen.

I also question talk of a ‘pre-meeting’ - I think the letter can be read carefully as indicating that the first item on the agenda for the main meeting will be the situation in the US, an initial part of the business that may well shape the remainder of the agenda. Guests will be invited to contribute to the first item on the agenda for the primates to consider and act upon. What that action may be is something I think ++RW will leave in the primate’s hands. I’m not sure anyone (except the Lord!) knows quite how this will pan out - all the more cause for prayer!

It is sad leaders of the church cannot be straightforward but are reduced to using vague language with hidden meanings.  That is political, not Biblical.  Being a pessimist, I see ABC doing all he can to distract and undermine the Tanzania meeting.  He will stall and try to keep everyone talking and talking and talking.  He has a better than even chance of succeeding.  The Global South primates’ weakness is their politeness.  They will, once again, be hoodwinked by the liberals.  Bottom line:  I expect nothing of substance to come out of the Tanzania meeting.  And that is exactly what ABC and PB Schori want.

For what it is worth, here is my two cents on the meeting. I would hope that the Global South Primates stand firm in their convictions. I would hope that they have the presence of mind not to boycott this meeting because of ++KJS’s presence.  If they do boycott this meeting then the orhodox can hang it up, because there will be no discipline of TEC. That is why the Global South Primates have to hang in there and not waver.

Of course, I could make the argument that ++Rowan is being devious and hopes to keep the Global South away by means of invinting ++KJS to the party. I do not think he is that devious, however. But I do agree with other’s opinion - stated in this thread - that ++Rowan’s penchant is to prolong the talking phase as long as he can. Hopefully, the GS Primates can force some kind of decision or resolution.

We’ll just have to wait and see!

Matt,
I live in Hurricane country and the weather men report the current situation to the best of their ability, but before the report is complete, they say, “stay tuned for the next update when the situation will be reviewed”.  The implication of course is that we live in a dynamic world.

Your essay is thorough, and I agree with much of it, but I think your conclusion that Schori will be seated because ++Williams said so is a bit like saying the hurricane is going to hit such and such because the weatherman said so.  ++Williams also said the situation was going to be reviewed.  This clearly implies that Schori’s status may change.  It is quite possible and I think probable that ++Williams currently must invite her until such time as a council can determine her status.  That is his justification for not uninviting her.  He then calls for a council which could do specifically that which he said her could not unilaterally do.  I am not suggesting that the text makes this 100% clear, I am simply stating that given the situation, I think it is the most probable interpretation.

I say this not to argue, but to give you hope.  Be encouraged that things may not be as dire as you presume. 

2Ki 6:15-17 The prophet’s attendant got up early in the morning. When he went outside there was an army surrounding the city, along with horses and chariots. He said to Elisha, “Oh no, my master! What will we do?” He replied, “Don’t be afraid, for our side outnumbers them.” Then Elisha prayed, “O LORD, open his eyes so he can see.” The LORD opened the servant’s eyes and he saw that the hill was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

I would suggest that all of us are very much like Elisha’s servant, even those who have done such an excellent job of analyzing +++Rowan’s carefully fuzzy agenda letter. Some of us are more hopeful than others, but none of us have reported seeing the Lord’s hosts arrayed to do battle. As I said, we are more like Elisha’s servant.

Our only weapon is not conjecture, but intercession. I do not in the least begrudge Matt’s, or any other very thoughtful and careful analysis. I want to understand +++Rowan’s letter as well as we are able, just as I want to understand ++Orombi’s and the other archbishops’ statements as well as we are able. However, ultimately we are talking about a meeting in a room containing many Godly men who want to see God’s will done for the Anglican Communion. We need to be clear that meeting politics and interpersonal interaction will be only the surface mechanics of the gathering.

“... our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.” [Eph 6:12]  Much of the battle for the Anglican Communion during the meeting would not be visible to us even if we were in the room.

We need to follow the lead of Karen B. and others and intercede for the primates - in preparation for the meeting and during it.

++Rowan holds the power of invitation. But the value of that power is directly proportional to the number of members of the communion. What’s the point of having the power to invite people to communion functions, if by inviting one member half the rest pick up and leave?

The primates have to know - as does ++Rowan - that rubber is inching perilously close to road: And either the Covenant is the road forward for the communion (with Windsor as the only on-ramp), or this communion is not worth being a part of.

The Global South primates have laid it out there: At Dromantine, they declared that Windsor is the way forward. If you can’t comply with Windsor, consider yourself out of the communion. tHey attempted to put teeth into the Windsor process. If they can’t keep those teeth in it - that is, if ECUSA gets to blatantly disregard Windsor as it did at GC06, yet not be expelled (or at least severly disciplined) - then they know it’s Katy-bar-the-door on theological “innovation” in any province that desires to pursue it… beginning with Canada, and immediately followed by the CoE itself. If they choose to remain in the communion, they will be in communion with theological and ecclesiological hooligans.

I don’t believe many of them will do that, and I count in that group Akinola, Orombi, Kolini, Mtetemala, and perhaps Chew, with Venables and Gomez distinct possibilities. If only the first 4 of those guys go, that’s half your communion right there.

Tanzaina is a combination gut-check and showdown: Will the GS primates stick to their guns, and if they do, will ++Rowan stand behind the primates?

Archbishop fears Church schism in gay row

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:58am GMT 06/01/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/06/nchurch06.xml

The Archbishop of Canterbury has admitted that he fears losing control of the worldwide Anglican Church, which is on the brink of schism over homosexuality.

The archbishop is hoping that a compromise will emerge, allowing conservatives and liberals to co-exist relatively peacefully until a more formal split can be worked out over the next decade.

Please tell me we aren’t going to go back to the ten year delaying tactic…sigh.

Karen B., Bill Cool, et al.,

I am inspired by your admonitions that our cause lies with the Lord and that it is to prayer that we must turn.  Sometimes, in a flash of conviction, I realize how much time I have spent thinking and writing about the fate of our church compared to the amount of time I have spent praying about it.  I know I need to let your words sink in tonight and be on my knees about the coming events more than I normally am.  In the midst of all this, I am very grateful for the work of the Holy Spirit in many of you that does reach out through the tangle of politics and heresy and sin and minister to me.

Greg, Matt+, Sarah, just an idea: what if we started a thread specifically for people to post prayers for our church and its leaders?  I wonder if that is not a fitting thing to keep front and center in the days and weeks ahead.

I have just sort of been lurking on this because there are so many of you that have written such fine things but I would say to Matt, very good analysis, and this certainly is not a good letter for the orthodox. It seems clear to me that despite what any one wants or thinks that Williams sees the ABC as a facilitator only. It’s his job to get people to the table, the more the better, as long as they are primates. The GS wants another primate for the American Orthodox but ABC doesn’t think it is his job to make one or deny one for that matter. The GS primates are invited, if they wish not to come it is their choice.
They asked for another representative from the USA for the orthodox. ABC has said he will invite a spectrum of bishops from the USA for an informal session. I don’t see this as a trial of KJS and TEC but as an opportunity for the GS to say they attended but still not sit formally with KJS. It is an out for them provided by the ABC but that is the best he will do for them. He has no intention of not inviting a duly elected primate and KJS will be seated at the formal meeting and, and this is isogesis I admit, he will not attend a formal meeting without her. The purpose of the meeting to him is to discuss and there is no point in discussing TEC without KJS. More isogesis, this informal session is to allow the Americans to decide if another US representative is needed. I think you are right and he has shown his leanings and has given the advantage to KJS. There will be 3 other bishops, center left, center right and right and if a majority of them agree that the US should have another seat at the formal meeting, unlikely, then the ABC will be for it. If the GS leaves they can still say they were there and, as I think the ABC hopes, stay if the US orthodox have a seat. The grand purpose behind all of this is one big punt of course. The TEC want to get to Lambeth 08 and if the ABC can get everyone to hang around here he can certainly invite TEC to Lambeth. If TEC gets suspended there then so be it, they still got to go to the show. They will sit out after that because they really don’t care and they are sure that by 2018 all of this will be in the rear view. That’s a good solution for Williams too because there is no way he will be ABC in 2018 so he’s off the hook.

Forgive me if this is crass but this whole situation, to me, looks like this. A while back a bunch of guys, each with his own turf, got together for an ongoing series of poker games. Lots of people play poker but they all agreed that they would play 7 card stud only as everyone knows 7 card stud is THE WAY to play poker. They never wrote this all down, it’s just a poker game, but there was a very definite informal understanding that it was 7 card stud only. Each turf would only get one player and that player would be chosen by the local players of that turf. One player, the ABC, they all agreed would always be the dealer along with saying when and where the game was and who got a seat. The whole thing was very nice because they weren’t playing to win anyway, just for amusement. When the last card is thrown everyone throws their cards in and it’s declared a draw, no one has to show their hole cards. This worked out very nice for some as not everyone anteed or bet equally and the players who brought very little cash to the game always went home with a lot more than they came with. The players who lost money had fun too because they could always say to themselves they were playing some other game of poker if they wanted and just bluff, no one ever calls anyway.  This went along fine and dandy for awhile but then some found out that women were playing poker at the local level and raised a fuss. Poker is a man’s game after all, women start playing and all of the sudden 7 card stud isn’t good enough. But the players at the big game said listen it’s no big deal if we allow women to play at the local level because they won’t ever play in this game and they promised to play 7 card stud and that seemed like a good compromise.  One day though some of the players started to think that a lot more than 7 card stud was being played at the local level in some places. They asked the players in the big game to affirm that only 7 card stud was being played and left it up to the dealer to deal them out if they weren’t. After all this is supposed to be one big 7 card stud playing society. People could choose how fancy the cards, table and room was and how they held the cards and all sorts of things but only 7 card stud is to be played. Well, the players got together with the dealer and he agreed to ask the one local society to affirm that 7 card stud was THE WAY to play poker. Well, that local society said we will play any kind of poker we want. In fact we have decided to play Follow The Queen and elected a woman to play at the big game. On top of that we want to change that values of the cards a little. The Ace is still the highest of course but it’s not right the The King is the highest picture card, when we play all the picture cards are 10s. Plus wildcards are fine with us, anything goes, so lower number cards can all be 10s too. That way everyone can only ever have the same hand and everyone wins, that’s the point of the game after all. Everyone plays poker differently they said and we want everyone to play. As long as people agree the Ace is high we will play with them. We’ll call it 7 card stud and they can call it what they like. Everyone is a winner that’s all that matters. Well, a few of the players at the big game agreed with this but the majority said wait a minute! By everything Hoyle there are rules to 7 card stud that have been laid down from when it was started and followed by the vast majority 7 card stud players everywhere. You can’t just make up another game and call it stud just because you are using 7 cards. Now some players said to the dealer if you invite that woman card player to the big game we aren’t showing up. Never mind that she’s a woman she doesn’t even think The King should have primacy. In the mean time some of the players at the big game noticed that there were plenty of people from the offending society who still loved to play straight 7 card stud. In fact these loyal local players actually were a very large number of the players who actually played regularly in addition to getting other people to play 7 card stud.  The big game players said to the dealer let someone from the loyal players play in the big game instead of that woman. After all, they said to the dealer, you are a player too don’t you care if someone isn’t playing the game right? Well, the dealer had been a dealer a long time and he really liked it, much more than actually playing, but it’s not as much fun with less people there. He didn’t think it was the dealer’s job to decide the players any way, it’s each local societies job. He wasn’t going to deal any one out. He told the offended players listen, we’ll have a little informal game before the big game with some local people who represent all kinds of players in the offending society. If it comes out of that game that we will have more players at the big game then fine with me, more dealing which is what I love any way. But, anyone who has been duly elected by their local society is going to play in the big game and I will deal to them. If some players don’t want to play that’s their choice but I’m not refusing to deal to anyone.  Now the dealer has stacked the deck a bit in the favor of the offending society by inviting a variety of poker players from that society and not just straight 7 card stud players but there is still an outside shot the offended players will get what they want. What more could they ask for? It is just cards after all…let’s deal!

“eisogesis” is the most common but I have seen isogesis too. It is a transliterated Greek Word. The “Ei” more correctly reflects Greek, but the “i” is more natural to English speakers and reflects the way “ei” is pronounced in the Grk.

“It is quite possible and I think probable that ++Williams currently must invite her until such time as a council can determine her status.”

There really is no “must” about it. The ABC noted a paragraph above where he admits that she will be invited that TEC has already been suspended. Her presence is thus, not a must.

As for the close reading of the text, I have been in on the crafting of statements like this and at this level. It is not a casual process. Words are very carefully chosen and then combed over and critiqued by a number of parties before they see the light of day. For that reason I know that a close reading of statements, with attention to detail is very important.

Matt,
If it is really true that TEC has been suspended, then Schori could only be invited as a non-voting participant.  She could listen and respond to questions, but would not truly be a full member with voice and vote.  For ++Williams to invite her as a full member, if TEC really has been suspended, would certainly be a violation of Windsor, and Dormintine and would therefore be seen as an arrogation of power and would certainly cause the demise of the AC. 

Such a view is simply not realistic to me.  I do not believe ++WIlliams would do this nor do I think it is really clear that TEC is suspended at this point.

I agree that we cannot rely on ++Williams and that our hope for this meeting lies in the GS primates (yes of course in God primarily).  I also believe the primates will stick to their guns and Rowan will have no choice but to go along.  He may not want to but he must or become irrelevant.

Most importantly, Pray!

Spencer,

This is another example of why it is important to read carefully. voluntary suspension is a word I used in the article to describe the the ABC explanation of ECUSA’s status.

Here is what the ABC says:
“The first is a reminder of what our current position actually is in relation to the Episcopal Church. This Province has agreed to withdraw its representation from certain bodies in the Communion until Lambeth 08”

Now, whatever you choose to call it and I really don’t care, not participating in “some” councils of communion does indeed represent a reduced communion status (whether it was wholly voluntary…well that depends on how you understand it when someone “invites” you to absent yourself).

In any case, the reduced status of TEC means that it was not a “must” for the ABC to invite TEC.

Moreover notice the “certain bodies” language. TEC has agreed to remove herself from certain bodies. By his invitation, the ABC has determined that this is not one of them. She will be there in her full capacity.

Whether she will stay or not, again, depends on what God does there in and through the GS primates esp.

On the analogy of the Primates meeting when some GS refused to receive Communion with Griswold and Williams relented, I see William’s letter as his initial position only, not as set in stone. If the GS Primates don’t blink, the pre-meeting could evolve into all the meeting there is. After all, the central stated purpose of the Primate’s meetings is to consult.

I’ve tried to digest the comments; apologies if I’m repeating someone else’s idea.

We Americans are trained to think along corporate lines, and many in the GS are not.  I simply wonder if their determination not to sit with Schori is nothing more than an act of obedience to God’s Holy Word in 1 Cor 5.  This is the model they gave at Dromantine—they attended meetings with Griswold but fasted and did not attend Communion.  In other words, they did not share a meal with him.  Five days is a long time to fast, but these are the same people who turned down ECUSA’s money. 
Prayer profiles for the primates are being offered daily at lent.classicalanglican.net.  Click on adopt-a-primate in the right-hand column to see previous posts.

P.S.  “adopt-a-primate” is under the Categories heading.

Well, all I have to say is this: If you expect the worst, any surprise you get will be a pleasant surprise.

For what it’s worth, I would like to thank Matt+ and many others (too numerous to mention) for what amounts to a free correspondence Theology Course. I have learned more about the Bible and Christian Theology over the past two years than I ever thought possible. Good work guys and gals!!!! Now, if you just wouldn’t use so many big words…..

the snarkster

Matt+,

I see you points, but I disagree some.  You are focused on what the ABC means, and with that I disagree.  What you see as isogesis of the ABC, I am seeing as looking at what the other Bishops can do with the letter. 

When Congress and other bodies first meet, they report on the validity of the members present.  This is often the credentials committee when it comes to conventions.  This My thinking is that the credentials process can be used by any group of Bishops at that meeting to not seat Dr Schori.  It is clear that many will not sit with her.  I must think that given nobody has said they are not coming that something alone this line is afoot.

Scott+: If the GS ++“s don’t show up, it would be a blunder of monumental proportions so I tend to agree with your point above.

the snarkster

I am sorry to have to admit that I agree with Matt—with almost every word he has written in this article.

I think I can be even glummer than he is about the ABC’s letter. 

The really sad thing is to see various groups hang all their hopes on this meeting, when time and time and time and time again, what the reasserters wanted from the meeting is given only in part.  My suspicion is that some nice things will happen in Tanzania, but that we will not get Communion discipline.

I suspect that one of the reasons why so many groupings of reasserters hang their hopes on the *best* happening at various meetings is that they are uneasily aware that time is flying, the clock is ticking, and every 3-6 months that go by, more parishes are leaving.

I don’t disagree with Matt+‘s reading of this letter from a “worst case” point of view.  But observe this bit in the Telegraph article posted above:

The archbishop is hoping that a compromise will emerge, allowing conservatives and liberals to co-exist relatively peacefully until a more formal split can be worked out over the next decade.

This is hardly a surprise; we’ve all known (at least those of us who have been paying attention) that the ABC would like to find some accomodation that would avoid actual expulsion of ECUSA on his watch, while at the same time he recognizes that some sort of separate representation must be provided for the orthodox in North America.

What he would like, though, and what is actually possible given the current situation in the Communion are two different things.  My take on the review session before the meeting is that it’s going to be—like the New York meeting last fall, also at +++Rowan’s behest—an effort to come to some sort of agreement between the ECUSA factions and the GS Primates before the formal meeting, to avoid the whole meeting blowing up in everyone’s faces.  I doubt that it will be successful, any more than NY was, but you can’t blame the man for trying.

Between Kigali and ++Orombi’s statement, and given +++Rowan’s conviction that the Primates constitute the ultimate ecclesial authority in the Church, I doubt that the interests of the American orthodox will be wholly ignored.  Even +++Rowan clearly understands that “wait for the Covenant” simply won’t cut it.

FWIW—a Fearless Prediction:

At the “review session,” the CAPA/Kigali primates will propose “observer” status for Mrs. Schori and full participation for the Network/?Windsor representative(s).  Mrs. Schori will, in keeping with her history of aggressive canonical stonewalling, completely reject the proposal and insist on her own full participation as exclusive representative of ECUSA.  A compromise will eventually be worked out between the ABC and the Primates involving “observer” status for both factions.  Mrs. Schori will reject this and fly home, confident that she has appropriately defended ECUSA’s polity against the forces of homophobia, reaction, and primitivism.

Thus the Primates’ Meeting will take place with no voting ECUSA presence and observer participation by the Network, laying the ground for a formal split earlier rather than later in spite of the ABC’s best efforts.

Of course, my prediction record so far is zero for whatever…

Between Kigali and ++Orombi’s statement, and given +++Rowan’s conviction that the primates constitute the ultimate ecclesial authority in the Church,

Craig:

A question: if ABC beleives that ‘the primates’ are the ultimate authority, why has he not acted according to their expressed desires - WR, Dromantine, Kigali and the letters noted?  All of these point to TEC being disciplined now and not finding a way for ‘liberals and conservatives to co-exist’....

I know we hate to admit it, but it is impossible (IMHO) to see his agenda as anything but detrimental to an orthodox AC for the forseeable future.  Which bodes ill for a biblical Province in the US that is a part of this Communion.  With parishes and conservative parishoners leaving almost daily (and Akinola retiring in 2 years), the revisionists may only have to hold on a bit longer before we are the remnant.

A question: if ABC beleives that ‘the primates’ are the ultimate authority, why has he not acted according to their expressed desires - WR, Dromantine, Kigali and the letters noted?

At Dromantine, he did.  Kigali was not a meeting of all the primates, and letters requesting him to behave in a Papal manner can only be acted on by the Primates as a body.  The Ecumenical Councils of the Patristic period were held with full participation by the heretics until they were by a vote of the whole anathematized; this is—mutatis mutandis—the model he’s attempting to follow.

I also agree with Matt as well, when I first read this letter my heart sank because I knew the game was over.  Rowan Williams had chosen unity with TEC over the faith handed down from the Apostles as revealed in Holy Writ.  He figures that he can continue to fence sit without having to clearly chose one side.
Matt points us all to the money phrase:  This is why I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the elected Primate of the Episcopal Church to attend the forthcoming meeting.  Matt is also on target that it means exactly what it says, that she will be seated as The Elected Primate of TEC, period, game over. 
No discipline, no consequences for violated the minimum requirements of the Windsor Report and Dromantine.  All else if fluff, fudge and more obfuscation in that oh so British manner.  It’s a slap in the face to the GS Primates, and it flys in direct opposition to Kigali as Matt so adroitly points us to again.  That’s the way I read it, just like I read it two weeks ago.
That’s when I began to seriously ask myself why I want to remain a member of the AC.  At this point I am only curious to see if the GS Primates really mean what they said at Kigali and will refuse to sit with KJS.  I’m not even 50% convinced that they will live up to their own words and we will see the GS version of the Anglican fudge. 

I have come to believe that all of this talk of unity is a tool of the Devil.  When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, Satan quoted scripture against him.  C.S. Lewis wrote about the concept of the tyranny of kindness and I think that is what we are seeing.  WWJD?  Frankly, I think that the whip would come out and he would throw the money-changers out of the temple. 
Tomorrow I will start church-shopping, even though my family urges me to stay and fight.  When I read the ABC’s letter, my reaction is fight for what?  I no longer want to be in communion with Rowan Williams.  Now what I want to know is do I want to be in communion with Akinola and Orombi, are they men of their word? 
Do I win the prize for the most pessimistic?

Craig:

So what part of ‘we will not sit with her’ and TEC’s acceptance of their invite to NOT attend Communion functions allow you to consider ABC’s decision to invite ++Schori as not behaving in a Papal manor?  He clearly has decided that the decision for inclusion and discipline is his to make (until he is FORCED to accept otherwhise - as at Kigali) even if it goes against prior agreements and clearly stated desires.  And even if it forces several Primates into an untenable position.

I say he is ACTING in a Papal manor in spite of and in opposition to the Primates.  Gayle hit it on the head…

We assert that TEC has been arrogant in their disregard for the rest of the AC, and in that I think we are correct.

However, we are possibly being arrogant, or at least small-minded about the primate’s meeting in February. It does not have have a single, lone agenda item labeled something like “What to do with TEC”. Numerous regions in which the other provinces reside have huge issues to address that have nothing directly to do with the American apostasy: the HIV/AIDS pandemic and its shattering effect upon society, extreme poverty, governmental corruption and incompetency on a scale we can hardy imagine, Islamic extremism and its impact on local governments and culture, the terribly disruptive effects of regional and civil conflicts, and how to train up pastors rapidly enough to handle the evangelistic success they are experiencing.

The American heresy and concomitant church confiscations, clergy depositions, etc., are an awful blot on the church for which many GS primates are willing to provide assistance, but they have in their own provinces huge issues to address. It is an amazing act of Christian charity that they are willing to bleed time away from those problems in their own regions to assist in defending orthodoxy in the American continent.

We collectively spent 40 years and more choosing to “stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you” [2Th 2:15] in our scattered local parishes and occasional orthodox dioceses, believing that our little isolated lights would somehow shine is such a way that they would drive out heretical beliefs and practices in all TEC. All the time, the enemy of the church was moving his pieces into place on the TEC chessboard.

We are now impatient that the GS primates come and fix the problem. They are willing to help, but we do need to remember that 1) we in American Anglicanism permitted this problem to arise over a very long period of time and should not necessarily expect it to be fixed for us by some certain date of our choosing, and 2) these primates are responsible, principally for Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, Southern Cone, etc., and not for North America. I am impatient to get things fixed, as are many. However, we need to remember that the efforts of the GS primates are a charity in the true Christian sense, and not our right to expect.

Once again, as I did in a post last night, I would suggest that our most important task is to intercede for these primates - that their assistance be effective, that they not get snookered by clever nuance and phrasing in a language that is their second and possibly even their third language, and that they also be able to get all the rest of the Lord’s agenda accomplished at this meeting.

I second what Bill Cool said.

the snarkster

Wilkie and Gayle:

FYI, in Anglican polity, the Archbishop of Canterbury is called the “focus of unity.”  That is, the purpose of his office is “unity,” (as in “one” holy, catholic, apostolic church”).  He has no where near the power of a pope or a CEO.  He is first among equals.  His power primarily comes from his authority to determine who receives invitations to the Lambeth Conference and to the Primates’ Meeting, which he chairs. 

Understanding the role of his office ought to shape our interpretation of his actions.

Here’s a third, Bill.  And that is exactly why the ABC’s lack of assertion is so dissapointing.  And it is also why more and more will leave - and many to a place where we can directly help our Orthodox brothers in the Southern Cone.

So what part of ‘we will not sit with her’ and TEC’s acceptance of their invite to NOT attend Communion functions allow you to consider ABC’s decision to invite ++Schori as not behaving in a Papal manor?

So if Mrs. Schori, Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Touche-Porter, Sr de Andrade,  Mr. Uematsu, and Mr. Aspinall had jointly announced that because of his extreme homophobia they could not sit with ++Akinola, he should have been disinvited to Tanzania?

We tend to use the term “the Primates” as shorthand for “the GS primates who aggressively support the American orthodox”—and it’s true that their view appears to have a majority in the whole body (thank God!)—but we shouldn’t forget that e.g. Brazil, Japan, South Africa, and several other provinces will reliably vote pro-ECUSA.  This is why the ABC is so insistent that everyone be at the table when decisions are made.

I’ll add a forth to Bill Cool’s point.

Craig, I agree we do need to read +++RW statement in context of our structure. We do mirror the Orthodox in that way and as was pointed out on another thread the ABC has been weak in comparason (“has voice with nothing to say”).

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/father_raymond_de_souza_rome_canterbury_and_ecumenism/

I agree, at the end, with Matt and Sarah and Bill.

And I suggest a new catagory for the 2007 Blog Awards: “Longest Posted Comment”.  Rock, you get my nomination!

I write slow, my comment to Craig Uffman, not Craig Goodrich. Sorry for any confusion.

Criags U: 
As you noted, his power comes primarily in his invites - and he has spoken (even in opposition to prior Primatial decisions).

Criag G:
If over 4+ years, a Province took action in opposition to the clear request of the PrimateS (after the Primate of that Province had signed a joint statement acknowledging that this action would ‘tear apart’ the Communion), and it became necessary that a special Commission be convened which issued a report specifically requesting reversals to avoid sanctions, followed by a special Primates meeting which further clarified what was expected and requesting that the Province not be invited to sit at Communion events, and after stalling under the guise of ECUSA polity to a triennial conference which made it clear that ‘repentance and reversal’ were not going to happen, and then having a significant number of Primates individually and through collective gatherings demand that the disinvite be enforced (not to mention all that I have left out like requests for APO and parishes leaving en masse)  - YES, that Primate should NOT be invited. 

You say ‘extreme homphobia’ and others say Biblical Orthodoxy.  When a majority of Primates spend 4+ years debating and concluding that a Primate’s actions are heretical, and he is given more than ample time to repent and return to the fold and refuses in no uncertain terms, then he should not be allowed a seat at our International decision-making table.  IMHO.

Wilkie—Let me recast your outline somewhat (the basic accuracy of which I don’t dispute):

The Primates agreed (as a body) that they should give GC06 an opportunity to comply with Windsor.  Shortly after GC06, the ABC asked for correspondence from all the provinces of the Communion evaluating the GC response to Windsor.  A suggestion of the tenor of those responses can be gleaned from his “Reflection” of late last year; they were for the most part obviously not sympathetic to ECUSA.  So clearly real decisions have to be made at this meeting; just as obviously ECUSA must be included on grounds of (as he suggests in the letter) due process.  If +++Rowan has no desire to be a Pope, even less does he want to be seen as the Red Queen (“sentence first, verdict afterwards”).

Now let me mention another timeline:  in 1976, some bishops of the Episcopal Church illegally ordained women, upsetting the Communion.  The laity of the Episcopal Church sat back in their pews and did nothing. 

In 1979, the General Convention replaced the book constituting our central claim to the Anglican tradition, a book regarded as the finest devotional work in English by observers ranging from Baptist to Eastern Orthodox, with a volume of trendy cliche-ridden touchy-feely junk theology.  The laity of the Episcopal Church sat back in their pews and did nothing. 

Throughout the 1980s active homosexuals were being ordained all over the church on a don’t-ask don’t-tell basis and the best our House of Bishops could do was produce a limp volume of wooly excuses.  The laity of the Episcopal Church sat back in their pews and did nothing. 

In the early 1990s, some courageous bishops brought the issue to trial.  The court judged Righter innocent on the grounds that ECUSA had no core doctrine that prohibited such ordination.  The laity of the Episcopal Church sat back in their pews and did nothing. 

At GC2000, a resolution was passed requiring all diocese to recognize women’s orders, in violation of the tolerance agreement which had allowed legalization of such orders in the first place.  The laity of the Episcopal Church sat back in their pews and did nothing.

Now after nearly half-a-century of dozing, the laity of the Episcopal Church expects the ABC and the Communion to pull its irons out of the fire Right Now.

We accuse our opponents—rightly—of childish self-centered whining.  I seem to recall reading somewhere about beams and motes…

Folks, I don’t believe we can do much more here than attempt to patiently sit out this “waiting game”. 

Previously, I concurred with BabyBlue’s analysis of the letter.  I prefer not to be optimistic or pessimistic; I’d rather just wait and see what happens. 

I don’t care to put a whole lot of stock in what Archbishop Williams says in his letter; it is an explanatory outline more than anything else.  It is also, as usual, couched in British politeness and a small amount(this time) of academic nebulousness.  I believe he has already outlined his thoughts on these matters, in “Challenge and Hope”.  It looks to me like he plans on trying to get everyone to the table, then get out of the way, as per he should, and let the Primates do their job.  Again, I pray that it’s their finest hour, because, if it is not and they pull any more wishy-washy manuevers or stall tactics, the Communion may just fracture beyond repair. 

I think a better use of everyone’s time, rather than overanalyzing all the amoebas on the fleas on the rats, would be writing Bishop Duncan and co. a letter and telling them exactly where you stand on these issues.  I am but a drop in the bucket, but the kind Bishop from Pittsburgh already well knows which “side”(the Christ’s) my spouse and I have “chosen this day” and why. 

I’d caution everyone to stop being massively pessimistic just so you can later end up pleasantly surprised.  That mode of thinking is truly bad for your brain cells.

I am dreadfully sorry for coming so late to this party, but having come a tad late gives me the the opportunity to be shocked at the general optimism being expressed here in response to Matt’s clear reading of the evidence.  Matt’s analysis is spot on, and anything else should be placed in the category of hope, not optimism.  Hope is not the same thing as wishful thinking, because we do have the person of God to hope in.  No matter what happens in Tanzania, God is working his purposes out.  In our time, however, it isn’t looking that good for us.

The evidence, unless one counts the written conjecture here and elsewhere, just doesn’t support optimism about what is going to happen at this meeting.  Besides, if one count the numbers (and we should), the Global South/orthodox Primates are a tiny majority in the communion.  If any of them stick to their guns over what they have stated regarding being seated with KJS, we can kiss any close votes goodbye.

That’s what I think, and I’m sticking to it. If it plays out some other way, that will be grand, but it won’t have been because a good outcome was able to be projected by the evidence.

Faithfully,

Andy,

Good to see you back on.  We trust and have prayer for complete and sppedy recovery.

The primates said that if TEC went forward with the consecration of VGR, the fabric of the communion would be torn.  PB Griswold tore the fabric with his hands.  Yet they attended Dromantine with him, while refusing meals and communion. 
I see PB Schori in the same mold as Griswold.  I am still wondering what precisely they mean by refusing ‘to sit with.’

“. . . if one count the numbers (and we should), the Global South/orthodox primates are a tiny majority in the communion.”—Andy Figueroa
How tiny is the majority, then?  I don’t seem to have those figures (sorry if I’ve missed them somewhere).

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_80903_ENG_HTM.htm

ENS says:

In late November, Williams, responding to a letter from the group Episcopal Majority, said that he was “not seeking to impose any new structure” on the Episcopal Church.

Williams wrote that he fully accepts that he has no jurisdiction in the Episcopal Church.

“I have had informal discussions with a number of parties in [the Episcopal Church], of very diverse opinions, as to what future possibilities there are, but I do not approach this with a pre-cooked agenda of my own,” Williams wrote.

Paula, I haven’t seen any numbers either.  815’s influence is wide—relief grants, economic subsidies of whole provinces, economic subsidies of the Anglican Communion Office and its periodicals, seminary training in ECUSA seminaries, short-term fellowships in ECUSA seminaries, companion diocese and companion parish relationships.

Matt: I want to reread your article when I’m more alert, but I do have these thoughts.

There are at least two reasons to pay close attention to a text: (1) because the text itself is authoritative; and (2) because the text is evidence of what a human authority will do.

In the context of secular law, a constitution is authoritative. So are statutes validly enacted under that constitution. Constitutions and valid statutes have legitimacy and binding force in themselves. We don’t look to them merely or even mostly as evidence of what legislators or voters will do in the future.

Orthodox Anglicans recognize scripture as having authority in itself because it is God’s written word—- indeed, as having paramount authority in keeping with its Inspirer.

The second type of text has no authority in itself but is nonetheless important as evidence of what a hum an authority will do. I believe that Abp. Williams’ letter falls into that category.

But first consider a paradigmatic example of the second type of text. Let’s say the President appoints and the Senate confirms you to a cabinet-level position in the Executive Branch. By law you serve “at the pleasure of the President.” You do your job well, and everyone (including the President and Fr. Jake) knows it. But one day, during a particularly tedious cabinet meeting, the President slips you a scrap of paper saying, “Matt, you’re a great guy and a fine public servant but it gets on my nerves when you tell people that my Administration is soft on the death penalty. My nerves have been testy of late.”

This little note is not an order. It has no formal significance whatsoever. But the note provides important evidence of your standing with the President. It can be read as a threat to fire you. In analyzing the note, the key question is not what the note says but how the President will act. In answering that question, you can and should also consider other evidence available to you.

Similarly, Abp. Williams’ letter has no formal significance. It does not in itself bind anyone, including Williams. The letter is simply evidence of what Williams may choose to do. In sizing up what Williams is likely to do, we can and should also consider other evidence. Considering the other evidence is not isogesis because the real question is not the meaning of the letter but Williams’ future conduct.

Irenaus,

Certainly, not just “other” but all evidence must be considered. The problem, I think is precisely that it has not been.

I am thankful for the distinctions you make above but I think you subcategorise this note incorrectly.

It does indeed fall into the second category you name above, “evidence of what a human authority will do.”

However, it is not at all like the example of the secret note that you use as an example. If the note said “Matt, you’re a great guy and a fine public servant but it gets on my nerves when you tell people that my Administration is soft on the death penalty…therefore I have decided not to invite you to sit on my cabinet”

we might be getting an little closer. The ABC’s letter does not only express opinion it also, very clearly, spells out a decided action. “I have decided…”

In that sense, though I generally agree that the reason the letter is important is because it gives an indication of the way a leader may act, I disagree that the “indication” is vague. He is quite clear and therefore the burden of proof is on those who would dismiss the plain meaning of his words.

“...It does not in itself bind anyone, including Williams. The letter is simply evidence of what Williams may choose to do.”

Sure, he can always change his mind. But he has just made a commitment to all of the primates of the Anglican Comunion including KJS to whom the letter was no doubt also sent, that she will attend the formal meeting as “Primate of the Episcopal Church” so backing out is a bit difficult at this point. As someone said above suggesting that it could happen is to enter the realm of “hope” which is fine and good, but unrealistic.

Matt: I agree that a public statement puts one’s credibility on the line.

But Abp. Williams wrote that he had “decided NOT TO WITHHOLD AN INVITATION to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the elected Primate of the Episcopal Church to attend the forthcoming meeting.”

OK, he will invite her to this meeting and (barring a credible explosion from the Global South) that could have consequences for future meetings. But issuing the invitation does not necessarily commit Williams to seeing her through the meeting in good standing or inviting her to future meetings, does it?

Ireneaus:
you said:

“OK, he will invite her to this meeting and (barring a credible explosion from the Global South) that could have consequences for future meetings. But issuing the invitation does not necessarily commit Williams to seeing her through the meeting in good standing or inviting her to future meetings, does it”

No, not at all. But again, we are entering the realm of hope and conjecture. The purpose of my article was to ground our understanding of the “current” situation in what ++RW has said publicly.

The GS primates, I think, probably understand the letter in much the way I have described it. This gives them time to think about a response. I pray and I believe that that response will be both bold and wise. So there is definitely ground for hope.

But this letter, in itself, is not that ground.

We don’t seem to be discussing the fact that ++Williams wants to say something in the meeting about his recent consultation with Pope Benedict.  Since we know where the Pope stands on the issues, doesn’t this detail weigh in on the side of our hopes?  I give it quite a bit of credit.

Some other evidence that supports Matt’s general pessimistic theme.

1) The proposed letter to the left that says the ABC is not about trying to impose a new structure (a Kigali word) on TEC and has no authority to do so. (see above link on my last post).

2) The comment in the Telegraph Article that says the ABC is seeking to forge a compromise that keeps everyone at the table for 10 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=EKYDK4T5CLNVPQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/01/06/nchurch06.xml

“The archbishop is hoping that a compromise will emerge, allowing conservatives and liberals to co-exist relatively peacefully until a more formal split can be worked out over the next decade.

But if his strategy falls apart a large section of the Church could break away and form a rival body, creating bitter divisions across the world, including the Church of England.

The disintegration could accelerate at next month’s meeting if conservative archbishops refuse to negotiate with the new female head of the liberal American branch of Anglicanism, which precipitated the crisis by consecrating a gay bishop in 2003.”

Note that the article states that a large section may break away, not that the TEC may be disciplined.  The article also says that this will happen if the conservatives refuse to negotiate with Schori.  Apparantly, Schori will have to agree to any future realignment compromise for 10 years etc.

I realize that this part of the article is Jonathan Petre speaking and not the ABC.  However, he is writing it as news, not opinion and I believe that he must be summarizing the background information that the ABC gave him.

3) Also in the article, it seems that the ABC sees the split (ie some group of the GS leaving the table) as inevitable and is giving this interview to give some advance warning to England, to pressure the GS, and to set blame on them for refusing to negotiate.

Given the ABC’s reluctance to take any definitive action (he’s not the pope they say), and his comments regarding each province’s free will, etc. I think he will invite everyone (to all tables) and let those who don’t want to play leave and take the blame for the breakup. 

So the pre-meeting is the last time probably that the entire group of primates will site together.  In that meeting there will likely be a last ditch effort to convince the GS to participate in a compromise that leaves everyone at the table with representation for 10 years to develop a covenant.

Matt: I agree that Abp. Williams’ letter provides no grounds for complacency and that it will be important for Global South primates prepare and organize accordingly.

10 years to develop a covenant, why bother?  In ten years there won’t be a need in North America, because all of the orthodox will have left TEC and the Anglican church in Canada. 

It’s Sunday morning and after looking at various websites, I’m headed back to the 1928 prayerbook church.  I just can’t bring myself to go to the happy-clappy AMiA that is nearer to our home.  I looked at the LCMS website but I’m not yet ready to give up on an Anglican form of worship.

Paula wrote, in response to part of my comment:

”. . . if one count the numbers (and we should), the Global South/orthodox primates are a tiny majority in the communion.”—Andy Figueroa
How tiny is the majority, then?  I don’t seem to have those figures (sorry if I’ve missed them somewhere).

As with other things, I extrapolate what I believe about this from the available evidence.  Here are the two things I tally:

On the Anglican Communion web site is a list of provinces.  Sort them into categories such as “conservative” “liberal” and “conflicted.”  Your mileage may vary depending on what you’ve read or experienced.

Better yet, look at the way representatives of each province voted at ACC-13 on the resolution dealing with the North American Churches.  It
passed 30 to 28 with 4 abstensions, and the US & Canada not allowed to
cast their six votes.

Heck of a way to run a church.

BillK may say:  “...Williams wrote that he fully accepts that he has no jurisdiction in the Episcopal Church…”  However, that quote does not preclude the possibility/likelihood that he will accept a new Anglican Church in North America that is composed of reasserter dioceses and parishes made up from the hundreds of parishes and congregations that have seceded and will secede from ECUSA. or that have been subsequently planted through ACN and some of the other orthodox Anglican groups.

The orthodox primates may have a slim majority, but a little over 50% of the world’s Primates and way over 50%  of the world’s Anglicans can hardly be considered a slim and and certainly not an impotent quantity.

We may be counting too much on:  “...  We are now impatient that the GS primates come and fix the problem. They are willing to help, but we do need to remember that 1) we in American Anglicanism permitted this problem to arise over a very long period of time and should not necessarily expect it to be fixed for us by some certain date of our choosing, and 2) these primates are responsible, principally for Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, Southern Cone, etc., and not for North America.”

As I see it, it may be that the GS primates may be motivated to ‘fix’ the problem’ in order, in part, to help resolve the North American crisis.  I think that if they act, it will be out of obedience to God’s call to be faithful to the Gospel and uninfluenced by any deep-seated involvement (financial and otherwise -and we have seen evidence of some shedding of this influence by some of the African churches) of ECUSA.  I hope and believe that the Global South is coming of age.  Some of the African churches have made that clear in their rewritten constitutions where they state that their allegiance is to the Lord, His Gospel before Canterbury.  I hope and pray that they will follow through with that. 
What did Richard III (or rather William S) say?  “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse”.  We and the GS, and all other true Anglican believers will not, cannot take that horse.  I think that the consequences of our stand for His Kingdom are gathering momentum and they may not all be easy consequences.  Sorry, folks, Richard III made for a lousy analogy.
These are such tumultuous times that it is easy to let our emotions and intellectual faculties run riot and sway back and forth between pessimism and optimism.  That is what the Hebrews did at every perceived obstacle.

On a personal note.  Sometimes I find it difficult to hear pessimism from those of you who I think are very likely close to the ‘inner ring’ of Anglican rebels and thus indirectly echoing pessimism from our ‘leaders’.
Makes me pray all that much more.

Matt - Great review. The problem of leadership within the AC remains the ABC.

RE: “On a personal note.  Sometimes I find it difficult to hear pessimism from those of you who I think are very likely close to the ‘inner ring’ of Anglican rebels and thus indirectly echoing pessimism from our ‘leaders’.”

Dumb Ox—as encouragement to you, I assure you that I 1) am not in an “inner ring” of knowledge, just of rebellion and 2) have always been pessimistic.

; > )

I prefer, actually, the word “realistic”, based on taking into account 1) past behavior and 2) human pyschology.

I can easily fall into pessimism too, but I have a strong conviction that the GS primates will perform well in Feb.  Rowan may want one thing, but I believe he will get quite another.  I am convinced that the GS primates will stand firm and Rowan will have no choice.  This alone gives me hope for the Anglican Communion.

Sarah,  Thank you for your kind words.  I actually wasn’t including you as one of those close to the inner circle, since one who, when in the proximity of an elf, falls into vile and terrible diatribes against poor pointy-eared creatures who are just trying to help (phew ....catches breath…) would be very unlikely to be near any circles inner or outer!

Anyway, I distinctly recall reading optimistic words here and there in your comments.
    DO

I’m with Spencer.  From what I hear, a namby-pamby agenda was attempted at Dromantine, but the GS Primates would have none of that.  The result, if I am correct, was a communique that largely justified and permitted the necessary “boundary-crossing”, even though the WR discouraged that. 

Archbishop Malango also stated this at “Hope and a Future”—in essence, the power lies with the Primates.  As I’ve said before, I understand points of view like Matt’s but for right now, I prefer to sit the fence, albeit in hope.  The world does not revolve around me, but, if my prayers are answered, spineless academic meandering will be shafted and God and active, decisive leadership will rule. 

The reasserting faithful in ANY country, in my view, have had ENOUGH…

Dumb Ox . . . how do you know that the inner circle does not pass around recipes for Roast Elf With Apple and Sage?

And . . . how would I know any of these super-secret recipes anyway?

Well, if Sarah isnt in close to the inner ring, who is?

Sarah,
Didn’t you know - you NEVER mix sage and elves.

Well, I do know that elves, like pigs, would each be roasted with an apple in his/her mouth.  AND since elves ALWAYS speak, they simply can’t be roasted as we couldn’t hear them.  I know that I can’t speak with an apple in my mouth (the human me) and elves have even smaller mouths. (—————————-) mine vs (—-) elf
It therefore follows that whatever recipes the inner circle pass around they can’t include elves.  Anyway, +sDuncan and Iker et al are far too nice to even contemplate comments like these,  let alone recipes that would make any self-respecting elf quake.
And finally, I like elves.
DO (elf liker)