BREAKING: Open Letter to the Episcopal Church (Camp Allen)

first response: air ball

If +Howard was indeed there, he couldn’t even sign his name to this letter, which is pretty tame.

No action plan, no road map, no resolves no results, no dice.

What is this??????

“we plan to meet again early in the new year”

Why?

This strikes me as the ecclesiastical equivalent to an IFF transponder response.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe)

Incoming?!?

There needs to be something more serious coming out of a meeting like this. Essentially this says little more than the original Windsor bishops letter…ie: We really want to be part of the Communion and we accept the Windsor report.

It is a good thing to seek to broaden the orthodox coalition, but IMHO, the coalition should not be marked (or marred) by concensus-style leadership. This is a time for boldness and courage. The Network leaders have it. They ought not give it up in exchange for a broader grouping of bishops.

The contrast of this wimpy letter with the Global South Primates’ communique is rather striking, is it not?

“It is our intention to offer a faithful and dynamic witness within the Episcopal Church.”

I find this line to be very disappointing. It appears that just when the Global South says that they will recognize a non-ECUSA realignment of Windsor Bishops, the Windsor Bishops back off and say they are willing to stay within ECUSA, as long as APO can be worked out. I believe that ECUSA is unfixable, and the sooner we leave in communion with the rest of the Anglican world, the better.

I have a slightly different take on the significance of this statement.  It does leave me wanting more in terms of action, but I would not call it insignificant.

Look at what this group of bishops says:

They are dealing directly with Canterbury, which is a snub of ECUSA leadership (para 3);
They implicitly repudiate those in ECUSA that would relativize and alter the Christian Faith; in doing so, I think they make an admission that this is, in fact, a problem within ECUSA (para 4);
They commit to Communion-wide conciliarity – implicitly abandoning General Convention as the last word for what is normative within the American province (para 5);
They recognize Dromantine as the Primates’ request (para 5);
They explicitly endorse the teaching of Lambeth 1.10 (para 7);
They recognize the APO requests as valid steps by the requesting dioceses (para 9).

Within the do-nothing polity of ECUSA, this is rather remarkable, considering there are non-Network signatories.  You can be sure Mrs. Schori is going to hit the roof and throw dishes when she reads this.

Taken with the GS communiqué, this has been a crushing day for ECUSA.  Look for it to lash out; an animal is most dangerous when wounded and cornered.  In fact, the call to do so has already gone out by Rev. Mark Harris: http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2006/09/some-unkind-thoughts-on-communiqu-from.html.

I’m actually relieved that +Howard did not sign it, as he is at least acting consistently.  As I read down the letter, I thought, “+Howard can’t possibly sign this.”  And he seems to have acted with integrity.

Surely something more was done here than this.. I am dismayed that more definite direction is not manifest…look if you are a clergy reading this skip to the next one; if not then lets understand something…the clergy will not be the ones leading the reformation…how do churches start in the first place?  a group of lay people assemble and then call clergy to them…
it is coming to the point that we, all of us are going to have to abandon OUR affinities to what we have first!  To say to our clergy look you’re great but sticking around is only enabling the problem…maybw we will have to endure some allegations like “if you do that you are only going to hurt St. Swithens”...Well maybe St.Swithens needs to become St. Barts, with a new pastor…
Frankly I don’t have much more time or energy for a lot more of this

I appreciate what the statement says, but it is lacking in action steps.  As is said above, it pales in comparison to the Global South communique.  What it essentially says is that we have a group of bishops who pledge to live by Windsor, Dromantine, Lambeth 1.10, but some are also willing to live and work alongside heretic and apostate bishops who believe differently.

Wow,‘carrion eaters’,what a genteel opinion of your ‘Anglican brothers’ Fr Mark.

Hope for a renewed Anglican presence in the US will not be built on statements, or coalitions, such as this. The common demoninator of these Bishops was just too low to be meaningful.
You shouldnt have to reread a statement multiple times to find obscure hopeful signs. Compare this with the Global South statement—it is the difference between night and day. 
Its very frustrating. The Global South has said—and they mean it—be bold and we will support you.  Clearly, the Global South is less concerned about what TEC does than what the orthodox might not do. Yet boldness is the one attribute that we seem to lack. 
I have faith that the Network Bishops, at least most of them, will find their way out.  But for the rest, the so called broader “Windsor Bishops”, they offer no solution, no hope, nothing but dialogue.

Matt and all,
What we don’t know here is what additional communications were carried to Lambeth and to Kigali. If +Howard couldn’t sign on and +Jack and +James could, particularly +Jack’s willingness to meet with this group again after his statement from last week about the other group, then we have to assume that there are other currents still running.

Does anyone see 815’s hand in this? With half of those present non-network bishops, this may have been the best they could come up with.  Shamefully!  But, since this will be played out in His time, not ours, I’ll wait.
George

This is not an open declaration of secession, nor is it a declaration of war.  It is, however, a sharp rebuke to 815’s revisionists and their lackeys, couched in “church-speak”.  The Global South primates do not have to be concerned with a host of issues within TEC, not the least of which are legal issues concerned with property, and canon issues, which are boiling over in ECarolina as we speak.  If you are looking for fiery rhetoric you won’t find it here, but I find hope and take courage from a number of statements contained within the release.  Considering the original invitation and the bishop who tendered it, and the range of participants, I think it is a remarkable statement.

Maybe if the Global South would offer pensions some of your wonderful clergy would be more bold in their actions. 

Linda McMillan
Austin, Texas

My initial reaction was the same as those expressed above.  But the more I read this, the more I appreciate what they have done.  I think this is actually the clarion call, yet expressed differently than expected.  Perhaps those awaiting deliverance expected a martial drum beat, but deliverance came in the form of the peaceable kingdom….  This letter says that the signatories subject themselves to the authority of the communion as expressed in Windsor, Lambeth, and Dromantine, a submission that matches the terms expressed by both ABC and the GS primates today and in the past.  They are, in effect, saying “we are the remnant,” and even if some of our fellow bishops walk apart, we do not.  And by addressing it the HoB, they lay down a marker, positioning themselves officially as the only ones within TEC declaring themselves to be in a constituent relationship with the Communion.  They invite others to join them, and I predict others will.  Thus they are staking the claim, like Calvin did in his Letter to Sadaleto and John Jewel did for CoE in “An Apologie of the Church of England,” that they remain the true church and it is the others who have walked apart.  If this is followed by a recognition of this group by the Communion and a non-recognition of non-signatories, they retain a legal claim that they are the true TEC.  The second ecclesial structure would de facto be created by those bishops who are not signatories.  In other words, by doing it this way, they force the non-signatories to be clearly shown to be the schismatics.  And, at the same time, it rightly expresses a proper pastoral concern for those congregations (why not “parishes,” I wonder?) unable to affirm their statement.  So, to me, this looks subtle but clever, and in keeping with a respect for catholic order.

Linda:

Unfortunately, that’s more the point than not.  Our priest vowed he was orthodox until we said we were going to leave ECUSA.  Then all it was ‘his insurance’ and ‘his pension’.  While money may not be the root of all evil, it certainly seems to prelude Godliness in the Espicopal Church…

at least that’s been our experience…

Interesting analysis, Craig.  I hope that you’re right.

Linda, boldness should not be equated with brashness and the “You can’t tell ME what to do” approach used in 1974, 1976, 2003, and 2006.  That is childishness.  Now let us put away childish things, and be ready to submit to higher authority than can be found in Manhattan.

This statement looks more like a opportunity for the bishops to gather, chew the fat and enjoy first class accommodations at the expense of all of us than an effort to stand for something.  With this kind of leadership, who needs an Anglican communion???  As for me and my house, we are about to depart the Episcopal church.
DE in NH

Wait a minute…!!!! Mark MacDonald knowingly ordained a lesbian as a priest quite recently!

Craig,

“And, at the same time, it rightly expresses a proper pastoral concern for those congregations (why not “parishes,” I wonder?) unable to affirm their statement. ” 

Because there others, like myself, who are in missions, and are but lowly deacons; therefore considered to be under the direct authority of their diocesan, and cannot belong, as a congregation, to the ACN or the AAC. 

Which is canonically correct for TEC missions; however, I am not TEC, I belong to another Province, but still can only be an individual member, even though my mission is 100% AAC and ACN committed.

I like Craig’s analysis, but I would have been happier IF they had at least stated that they were encouraged by the Kigali statement from the Primates…or something along those lines.  I don’t actually expect them to commit until after the February meetings.

Sadly, I find myself in agreement with Linda M on this small subject.  It is all about pensions and cushy offices and country club memberships.
El Jefe, I am so sick of “church speak”.  It was so refreshing to hear the GS bishop speak plainly.  When does the leadership of this church love the Lord more than they love the property and the canons?  I know there are a few within the clerical leadership of this denomination that are willing to risk.

But not enough, no, not enough indeed. 
It would almost be easier for me if I were in a revisionist diocese than one of these inane, insipid “Windsor compliant” dioceses. “Oh, were that ye were either hot or cold, but you are lukewarm and so I spit you out.”
I can’t help but think of the movie “Dogma” and what happened to one of the angelic hosts because he sat on the fence while Michael and his brothers fought against Lucifer.

Linda, Gayle:  I have long maintained that the fifth Instrument of Unity is the Church Pension Fund :=). In all seriousness, for people with families that is a serious consideration.  It is very difficult to put your hand to the plow and not look back.  However, I should note that the ACN has made brokered a retirement and health plan separate from the CPF.

“Maybe if the Global South would offer pensions some of your wonderful clergy would be more bold in their actions. “

Linda,  if you had ANY idea of the average salary of a parish priest, you would not be so quick to snark.  Many are on subsistence at best - I, as a PK, remember food stamps and Medicaid and my dad serving multiple parishes.  Do NOT belittle the sacrifices that are made when God puts a call on a person’s life, and do NOT dare to admonish someone for being fearful about their family’s future.  God does and will provide, and will heap measures of joy and abundance on all who serve Him, but I suggest you step down a notch when you assign that kind of motivation.  These men and women already give much, and you assumption that this is monitarily motivated is reprehensible and misinformed.

GillianC:

That may be true of many priests, but not the ones in the Episcopal church I know of.  Ours (with insurance, health coverage, housing subsidy, etc included) makes about 107,000 a year.  Since I come from a working class community - where the average is probably around 40 thousand - maybe - this is what we would term ‘wealthy’. 

As a former Baptist I sure knew of pastors who scraped by, but I have never met such a person while I was Espicopal.  Frankly, I’m glad, when we split, the old church took the money and the priest.  Now, since we have little, perhaps a man who loves God and not his pension will come and be our priest…

Gillian, that was my first, knee-jerk response, but I think that Linda was talking about bishops.  As a priest, I have a pension, an office with tile floor, and no country club membership.  She must have been talking about bishops, or you are right.

Ohl signed this? I don’t belive it as he has no backbone other than to worry about his pension. It is a weak start.

Third try: Eclipse, having served in 4 dioceses and being familiar with what those dioceses suggested for compensation packages, I believe that you will find that few priests have a package as large as your priest.  Most dioceses are composed of many small churches, a few medium-sized and some large churches.  The package you cite is not affordable for most Episcopal congregations.

Senior priest, can you document the statement about Mark MacDonald?

For clarity, I was talking about the bishops.  (I won’t speak for Linda.)  I am in the Diocese of Texas, and they have a very, very cushy lifestyle here.  The bishops, that is.  I also know that there are priests in this diocese they are eeking by on the diocesean minimum.

Tony, thank you for you affirmation.  My dad worked in several dioceses, and the only parish that offered him a “cushy” deal was one he could not stay in for theological reasons (he will correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure).  The rest were not providing a luxurious or even generous compensation, considering that the average person with the amount of education necessary for the Episcopal priesthood makes MUCH more in the secular world.  I realize that such comparisons should not be made, but it burns me when people assume the motivation to be monetary.  I am awaiting Linda’s response, and praying HARD for forgiveness for my uncharitable response.

I noted in paragraph 10 from Kilgali a reference to “Windsor Dioceses,”  which is a term I hve never seen the GS use before.  After reading the Camp Allen letter, I sense that the Camp Allen Bishops and the GS Bishops have been talking.  I would have prefered a stronger statement from Camp Allen, but there is more going on than we can know just yet.

Presumably most bishops have already qualified for their full retirement and it is not in jeopardy no matter what they do.  That is not to say that there are not other worldly concerns that influence them.  There may also be a number of concerns of a spiritual nature that motivate them as well (imagine that).

107,000$ !!!!

Wow, that is incredible. I have a family of 5 (me included) and make maybe 1/3 of that

Linda, Eclipse, and others;

As a parish priest, let me assure you that I am not going to get rich off the compensation from the two parishes I serve.  I make far, far less than 100k (try the 20-30k range) and I do not have a membership to any country clubs. 
It’s not so easy as just packing up and leaving.  As the sole provider for my family, I must be able to take care of my wife and child.  Pension fund can come and go, but I need health insurance and enough money for food, clothing, and shelter. In my experience in non-network diocese, the big parishes and their compensation packages do not go to the conservative priests.  We’re the ones just scraping by.  Rest assured that the 100k priest is an anomaly, not the rule.

If deposed, however, there is no pension.  (I invite correction on this point if I am incorrect—not that the invitation is generally required in the blogosphere.)
Furthermore, several of these bishops could retire today, enjoy a decent lifestyle on their pensions, and not have to endure this awful battle.  I do not believe for one minute that they are doing this to save their pensions.  Several (if I am correct about the potential to lose their pensions) are doing this in spite of their pensions.

God bless those are standing up for us, ones who would otherwise be helpless in the quest.

Finally, I believe this statement to be right words for the right time.

This talk of pensions and financial renumeration in connection with our bishops has echoes of muttering at Meribah, methinks.  How is it more charitable than the muttered revisionist slurs that seek to attack the moral authority of African bishops with their calumny about polygamy?  I think we are led by godly women and men who are striving to be guided by the Holy Spirit as they navigate this uncharted wilderness.

First of all, after much discussion elsewhere, it was pointed out that for anyone who had served long enough to be vested, their pension would be frozen at the amount of their leaving. It would not continue to appreciate, but could be drawn down at the proper age.

Also, it has not been that long since the Network announced a pension plan for any clergy who needed one.. Also, they were “working on health insurance”.. 

Now I certainly have no knowledge of the plan, or how many participate, or other details, but I do remember the announcement. If you are clergy, you might write them and ask…

Blessings,
Grannie Gloria

Its not a matter of conservative and liberal parishes paying their clergy different; its just a matter of smaller parishes paying thier clergy a lot less than the large, growing parishes. That is not unusual in any denomination, other than, of course, the Roman Catholic church. There are numerous Senior Rectors of large parishes making nicely over 100,000 a year, however, they only do so for a few years and much of their ministry made a very modest salary. Of course, these salaries are chicken feed in comparison to that earned by the Episcopal Priest who (formerly) the headmaster at St. Paul’s Episcopal School. He was reported by the WSJ as recieving $524,000 in compensation in 2003!
It is my understanding that if a Priest is vested in the Church Pension Fund he remains vested, or at least that is the current thought. However, if you leave TEC (except under certain defined circumstances overseas) you are no longer allowed to accrue time in the system. So essentially you are left with whatever time you accrued when you left. If you are not vested when you “bolt” you are currently out of luck. The right thing to do would be to negotiate a procedure wherein a departing Episcopal Priest could continue to participate if he is under another Anglican Bishop.  But I have not read of any serious discussions of that happening. 
It is a little unfair to put the blame solely on Priests and Bishops for being unwilling to risk their compensation. That is the ideal, but how many of us lay people have been willing to risk OUR paychecks for this cause?  Those in the congregation that are dedicated to the cause of Christ should provide assurances to their clergy that they will provide the necessary means of support if they take a stand and leave.  Included in this would be cash for a new retirement system. No hollow promises, but guarantees, cash on the table. 
This is perhaps is the biggest difference between the churches that have left and those that have remained in a sense of internal conflict. The larger ones that left were led by individuals who were willing to commit their treasures to the enterprise. God has paid them back fourfold.
If more Priests knew—really knew—that they could feed their families and educate their children if they left, they might be bolder. 
So here is some weekend homework—get a group of like minded parishioners together and in very realistic terms come up with financial assurances for your Priests. Then tell your clergy and tell them that they can eliminate financial considerations from their decision and simply follow God’s call.  The fact that you would do that will be an inspiring witness to your clergy. The Holy Spirit will be in your midst. Great things will happen.

This is about what I expected from Edward “Chicken” Little: a theoretical commitment to the truth backed up by absolutely no action, backbone or costly discipleship.

This is close to a disaster. The camp allen bishops have asked for far less than the GS primates have suggested they need.

This will make it very easy for the ABC simply to say: Obviously the American Windsor bishops are not asking for a seperate structure so why on earth should I give them one?

The idea of a seperate orthodox structure in NAmerica has been set back a far piece today.

Matt,
Good grief. Calm down. Unless you know everything that was said, unless you know what was in the message that the ABC’s representatives are carrying back with them, unless you know that there will be no other meetings, then count as what you see now as only the shadow of what is to come.

gbd
“calm down”
hmm…how odd? I’m not excited.
I am disappointed for the reasons I cited.

Does GDB seriously think that we should feel good about the fact that there will be more meetings to plan more meetings to have more meetings? Enough is enough. The so-called Windsor bishops are worse than the liberals—at least the liberals act on their principles. Any further meetings with these spineless jellyfish would be utterly futile.

I do think the “Network” bishops should explain themselves. I can’t imagine +Iker agreeing to “another meeting early next year”..

This is very confusing, so guess maybe we should reserve judgement.  One thing I did notice, neither the Network, AAC, Anglican United nor anyone else has had a single comment on whatever in the world was meant by this letter.

Lord have mercy…

Grannie Gloria

If these are the defenders of orthodoxy in ECUSA, then your condition is worse then anyone had thought.  The placative, soothing, unctuous tones create the image of beverage servers on the Titanic, assuring everyone that all will be well.  The statement is a wretched piece of trash.

addendum… Just took a peek at T19.. Had to laugh….
Elves said “Kendall is busy answering phone calls”......

I’d just be he is…. LOL
Grannie Gloria

If this statement was the end with nothing else forthcoming, then I would also be disappointed.  I expect however that behind the scenes a lot more is happening.  I’ll give it a few more months before departing…

reported on T19 that Howard returned to FL early for a clergy conference and had little to say.  Also reported that he never signs group letters.

Please chill, folks. A statement following a conference like this rarely reflects all the nuances that proceded. The network bishops have made an admirable attempt to expand their venue, and we need to give them room to go forward. They are not about to use language that would give 815 ammunition to come after them in a pre-imptive strike.

And as far as the pension issue is concerned, there is plenty of US law protecting the interests of vested clergy, and the only thing they might give up is the often obscene bonuses voted by the CPF from obscene earnings. But who knows, maybe the ACN Fund will have even better obscene earnings.  “Obscene earnings” is just a little lingo from the “destroy capitalism” crowd on the left.

I have no patience with a priest who does not take the time to understand his pension benefit well enough not to be a prisoner of it.

Gulfstream,

As I said at T19, I am normally an optimist. I love the Network bishops. I am a Network priest in a Network parish. There is no bone of contention I generally have great hope for the communion and great faith in ++Williams.

The problem, and please hear me in this because it is a big one, is that unless a subsequent meeting strengthens this statement, ++Williams will have no reason to act. We are asking him for nothing.

That is why this statement is an absolute failure and will be remembered as such. It squanders the gift of the Kigali communique.

I share Fr. Matt’s pessimism on the Camp Allen communique, even though it is possible that there is more going on behind the arras than we know.  The most worrisome part of Kigali is the second shot, not the one across 815’s bow, but across the Network’s (or, perhaps the “Windsor Bishops”) bow.  ++Akinola has said more than once that the GS primates are not going to be the calvary riding to the rescue in the sense that they and they alone determine the outcome for the American orthodox Anglicans. 

It is amazing to me that so few in the ACN seem able to look at the North American Anglican scene from the perspective of the GS bishops, especially those in Africa.  These are people without money or pensions or property – in any sense in which those are factors on the American scene.  These are people who face Islamo-fascist bullets and machetes.  Can you imagine the raised eyebrows down south at the spectacle of 20 odd well-fed bishops, spending a few days in a cushy retreat center, counseling with a pair of celebrity bishops even more well heeled (from the southern perspective, you see) from the Mother Church which is itself (according to GS lights) infested with the shilly-shally disease, and all they can produce is this smallish pitcher of warm spit? 

Fr. Matt thinks they have squandered the gift in the Kigali communique.  I agree.  Worse, they appear to have ignored the shot across their own bow as well.

My head is still spinning from the latest from ENS
Read it all here:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_78018_ENG_HTM.htm

Regarding Linda’s comment far up the thread.  While there are many of you who have responsibilities and needs at home and who must plan for your future, Linda’s comment is in no way the maturely contemplated opening statement of a serious and pertinent subject but a malicious jab at the orthodox.  Many of you know that is true of a number of her comments.  Don’t let her throw everyone ‘off thread’.

The Camp Allen bishops played this horribly. There is one bright spot, though: Remember how we were all surprised that +Howard was going to be attending? Here’s why: He repeatedly stood up to insist that any statement that came out of the meeting include a condemnation of diocesan border-crossings. The chair finally told him to put a sock in it, and soon afterward +Howard made himself scarce (that’s why he doesn’t show up as a signatory).

Here’s another something to ponder: The bishops at Camp Allen had the Kigali statement at least a couple of hours before they issued their own. They had ample time to consider it, and yet instead of grabbing the lifeline they knew the Global South had thrown them, they pulled up short, and asked for far less than they could have… far less than they should have.

Myself, I’m waiting for an explanation from these guys as to how it is they didn’t sell us down the river.

Greg, I’ve heard similar things about +Howard, that he left in frustration.  Though Living Church and folks in Dio. FL say he was scheduled to leave early anyway for a clergy conference.  It may be both / and.

I’m less sure of what you write that the Camp Allen bishops had the Kigali Communique.  I’m hoping we can get a clearer timeline about the drafting of both statements and specifically some clarity on whether the Camp Allen bishops knew (even quite generally) what the Primates were going to say.

“Duncan praised the Global South primates for their perspective in the NACDAP statement.
“In many places they and the Anglicans they pastor face poverty, disease and persecution for their faith on a scale that goes far beyond anything that threatens us. In fact, just this week, Anglicans in Nigeria saw their cathedral in Dutse burned to the ground by rioting Muslims. Yet, in the midst of dealing with these massive issues, they continue to offer us their support and guidance. We can only be profoundly grateful.”

I think +Duncan’s statement on the GS’s statement from Kigali is right on target and should help us here to keep things in perspective.  We live in relative comfort and safety with most of our material and survival needs met, surrounded, for sure, by the disease of a morally decadent society that works against much of what we stand for.  Yet in the midst of concerns that we, not one of us, ever have to face, their love and charity and concern reaches out to us here and offers us hope, advice and brotherhood.
We are not abandoned: we have His light to guide us and we are secure in our salvation. We do not know everything that transpired at Camp Allen.  We do not know the heart of each of the bishops who attended.  We do not know what the next step will be.  We are frustrated because the bishops did not march out of Camp Allen waving palm fronds and blowing trumpet blasts, girt with sword and buckler (some of them would have looked pretty funny like that).  AND Moses and the Hebrews did not know that when Moses raised his staff, the Red Sea would part, nor did the Hebrews know that even in the midst of their disobedience and doubt His hand was upon them, and He was making provision for them…. and they were in the wilderness for forty years.  I haven’t been in the wilderness for forty years.

“We pledge ourselves to work with our Episcopal colleagues to care for all God’s people in our dioceses.”
Where does that leave those of us who are not in Windsor dioceses?
The doxology from the Colorado mountaintops that was resounding after the report from Kigali just got buried in an avalanche of uncertainty!  +Rob O’Neill’s signature was not on the the letter though he promised months ago to remain loyal to Canterbury.

“Fr. Matt thinks they have squandered the gift in the Kigali communique”

Well, Matt, welcome again to the real world.  The “orthodox” here cannot expect to be somehow rescued from 6,000 miles away.  Have you lost your bearings?  This is USA.  We are the rebels.  We are also the leaders, if we so choose.  Poverty/riches is not the issue.  Security/risk is not the issue.  The issue is: can an orthodox gospel become dominant in USA, defeating an heretical one?  Yes, we have allies.  Yes, we have great teachings.  Yes, we have heroes who get homage daily.  But do we have the guts to get up and do the hard work of comradeship among the lost?  Can we follow Jesus and love our enemies, pray for strength and do spiritual battle, eschewing the cheap imitation of battle?  At this point I have to say: no.  What I see is a stiff, overwrought, reactive approach.  I see folks who would prefer to call for comrades from thousands of miles away and ignore St Paul’s (church builder par excellence) careful admonitions to look at home for counsel, challenge and accountability.  I see chickens when there should be eagles.  Enough but consider: is what we see above—just in this small thread—an example of the orthodox history so often admired, or some 20th century big box retail plastic version you would proffer?  Pensions.  Salaries.  Really, Matt: you should move to Texas where any priest worth his salt can pull down six figures and a ranch w/4x4.  The really good kids get ponies I hear.

I’ve had two blows today that were heartbreaking - the sudden death of a good friend and this.  My friend is with the Lord, so that I can handle.  This one . . . it’s hard to see the Lord’s work in this one.  I’d like to think it’s there and I’m blind to it.

Great comment Gregg.  This is another bizarre episode in one of the most intriguing cases I have seen.  To me the statement is much like GC 2006, seemingly meaningless.  I can’t imagine the bishops dissing the GS, it just doesn’t make sense.  If the Bishops lose the support of the GS and the incredibly loyal laity they have lost everything.  I also am disturbed by the number of orthodox bloggers we have lost over the last several months.  The statement on the surface alienates all of these groups.  They know better.  There is more to this.

I would like to say that for all of you still attending or presiding over an ECUSA parish (either Orthodox or Revisionist) my family is praying for you.

“Well, Matt, welcome again to the real world.  The “orthodox” here cannot expect to be somehow rescued from 6,000 miles away… “

Uh…terebinth. That was my point. We needed to act and we did not.

I’m less sure of what you write that the Camp Allen bishops had the Kigali Communique.

They had it.

Windsor, Shmindsor! Why is no one talking about a total re-alignment of dioceses, with no geographical boundaries, with each diocese being exclusively orthodox or exclusively revisionist, with the revisionist dioceses remaining in TEC and the orthodox dioceses becoming totally Anglican (world’s longest sentence). As long as we have dioceses that have both orthodox and revisionist parishes we ain’t fixed nothin’!

Give this a little time, folks.  We have not heard from any of the voices we know to be orthodox about what happened at Camp Allen.  Bishop Iker, are you out there?  This statement does not sound like you or Bishop Duncan had anything to do with it, even though you signed it.  Please enlighten us about why you did not address the Global South Communique.  Had you or had you not seen it?  We’re hearing both.  I can’t believe you had seen it and did not even comment on it.  We know your resolve and we praise God for your leadership.  Please make a statement of some kind if you can about what in the world went on at that meeting, because it looks pretty meaningless to us.
  I know you must be exhausted after the past two weeks, so after some rest we will be looking forward to statements from you and the other Network Bishops on why you signed on to this bland statement that even the ENS likes.

Doug, because we have talked about it until we are blue and purple in the face.

This may be an odd comment, but to me it seems like this statement, along with the GS statement is kind of a “good cop/bad cop” scenario….going towards the same thing, but perhaps throwing off the opposition (“the Perp”) with these different angles.

After watching the incredible interview with Bishop Duncan (filmed in Albany last weekend), I can’t help but think that he and others might subscribe to this statement as part of a powerful paper trail of effort to do what they could, that could be brought forth when things do indeed “break up,” and the revisionist dioceses take the reasserting parishes to court…..

Just a take from a different angle…

Matt+,

You have suggested we have “asked the ABC for nothing”.
I think he knows darned well what we are asking, and repeating our request would be harpy. The bishops in Texas were too smart to press for specifics. They recognized that their brothers in the South had asked for very specific responses, and wisely stood back while ABC and others had a chance to react. No point whatsoever in “ganging up”.

I think we watch this play out now.

I suspect a huge hammer is being raised and is about to come down. My trust is that Jesus is not about to let his Church get scrunched, and will step in, maybe soon, maybe later.

BettyLee Payne,

I second your emotion. Breathe, deeply.

This is better than goin’ to the circus ya’ll ! I never expected such a harsh statement and action oriented communique’ to come from the ranks of “Windsor Bishops”. Now this is what we here in the deep south call “movin’ forward with resolve”. There’s always the real Orthodox side. Ya’ll come on over !

Liz a possibility.  And if the GS recognizes (demands) that Bishop Duncan be the NA representative at Lambeth regardless of who is invited…............

Hey folks,
It’s hard to specifically reply here because so many of you seem down on the Camp Allen statement.  Common amongst so many is the dismay that the signatories seem to have pledged themselves, for now,  to renewal within TEC and further pastoral care for all those within their dioceses.  The latter is, I think, necessary at this time.  Knowing one of the signers somewhat, +Smith of ND, I am aware of the strong mission focus his diocese has with indigenous, or Native Americans.  In fact Bishop Smith is a Native American and was the only deputy from MN, while head of native ministries here, to vote against both Gene Robinson and same-sex blessings.  My point is this, when the realignment occurs, as it surely and thakfully will, who will want the costly missions in these and other dioceses?  Our friends in Integrity et al, I suspect, have their focus and the missions are not on their radar.  The Windsor Bishop’s pledge seems to me to be at least a pledge to these traditional Episcopalians that they will not be abandoned in the short term (until the Windsor’s meet again.) Somewhat the same logic seems to have applied with the failure in NY when the Network Bishops wanted assurances of protection for Network parishes in non-Network Dioceses.  It is quite clear: more than pensions and buildings need to be worked out within TEC as realignment draws nigh.  The Global South have laid out the End Game, the Windsor Bishops seem to have commmitted themselves to getting as many of us there (missions, native ministries, isolated orthodox parishes like mine in contra-Windsor dioceses) as possible.  Folks in Network and majority Orthodox/Reasserter Dioceses need to know that the discussions you all have had for three years have only officially (ramping up since GC2006) begun here.  All that being said I have to trust that what transpires between this past week and the next time the Windsor’s meet is that these discussions will have fast-tracked and morphed until they are GS like.

DL, wishful thinking.

This statement is feckless. It is timid at the very moment calling for bold action. It is worse than no statement at all.  It bolsters the argument of rousers like that the time to leave is now, and that those who are waiting to be rescued by others will be waiting a long time indeed.

Please, no more meetings with Windsor bishops. Enough is enough. These people can never be moved to take any action beyond issuing statements. We have had enough statements already.

Did anyone else notice the references to the Network in the ens story.  They were given this way: the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP)

Does anyone in the Network refer to it as NACDAP?

How many refer to it as the ACN?

My guess is that no one at ens would ever refer to the Network as the Anglican Communion Network.

I should also point out that, as lame as this was, think about your own bishop (those in the dioceses of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana especially, I’m talking to you)... forget signing anything - if he couldn’t even attend Camp Allen, what does that say?

“This is better than goin’ to the circus ya’ll !”

Not by a long shot.  I’ve never seen a circus that is as insipid as this statement.  To compare it to a circus is demeaning to any circus.

A Circus Fan

Greg, your point about Ala/Miss/La is a good one. It is these so called “moderate” Bishops that have been the real source of the long slide at TEC. At least the PB elect has the guts to speak what she believes (or doesnt).

For once, I agree with Susan Russell+, who discribes the Camp Allen statement as:“Not much new here ... Same “Stuff” Different Day ...

Michael B+  -

Sorry it’s taken awhile to respond.  I have children and they are the priority.

I think I could be labeled with a ‘knee-jerk reaction’ as well.  We were in a parish that had lost its faithful priest and THOUGHT we had replaced it with an orthodox one.  During all his interviews, ect., he came across this way.  However, once he was in our parish he constantly talked of ‘his vows to the diocese’ and ‘his insurance’ and ‘his pension’.  When our parish finally tried to move to disassociate itself from ECUSA and join the greater Anglican Communion, he stood in our way with all these pleas.  As a matter of fact, we have been littered with clergy all using this same excuse.  So, in our parish, it was the laity, not the clergy, that had to lead us out of an apostate denomination.  So, I see Episcopal/pension and all these unpleasant associations arise.  So please don’t take this as a personal affront to the faithful clergy.

From what I understand from the Scripture, Christianity is dying to self.  It is a process of depending on God for our life/being.  If we cannot do this in monetary issues, then what if we are ever faced with the situations of our brothers and sisters in Africa?  Woe be to us if we are ever faced with REAL persecution for the Faith.

I speak as one who currently has a teaching job that pays half the public salary because I want to speak the truth of Christ in the classroom.  I send my kids to Christian school - at great sacrifice - so they can speak their Faith.  So, I am not asking my clergy to do anymore than I am willing to do myself.  I know it is risky - but following Christ is worthless if we are not willing to risk what we have in order to gain what is best.

That is EXACTLY what is wrong with the Camp Allen report - it’s risking little to gain little… and it is a sham in comparison to the voice of Southern Communion.

Matt+ and all those despairing of Camp Allen,

I really, truly think that you are premature in your despair and way, way premature in judging it well nigh a disaster.  You could be right, but you need to look at both the CA statement and the Kigali statement with more nuance.  There is genuine hope from these developments today.  Please hear me out.

I sense that you desired the CA statement to state, point blank, that these bishops were seeking to be recognized by +++Rowan and the Primates as the true Anglican presence in north America.  But who’s to say that that request was not conveyed to +++Rowan by ++Durham and ++Winchester?  In fact, I can imagine a good argument to say that the only sensible way to make that request (at least right now) is under the cover of a private communication.  After all this is only their first meeting!  The Windsor compliant crowd—not just these bishops but priests and parishes and the Common Cause partners—needs some time in private to get better organized (that is how you should read the Kigali’s statement to the north Americans, not as a rebuke for spineless leadership!!!). 

You know, while speaking openly might have felt good, it would not be shrewd at a time when shrewd manuevering is needed in the run-up to the Primates meeting.  We must keep that meeting in mind and not because more meetings are desirable or to keep on talking is acceptable or yada, yada, yada.  No, I take +Duncan at his wordsin the post-NY interview: that time is over.  Rather, the Primates must act and their Meeting in February is the only where they could act to unseat TEC from the Communion anyhow.  That is a fact.  So it is quite fair and reasonable to assume that behind this non-confrontational statement there is action—manuevering needed to make sure that for February everyone and everything is all lined up and ready to go.

What’s more, just think for a minute what broadcasting all of that might do.  Saying out loud, right now, Hey, Frank and Katharine, we’re getting ready to take over north American Anglicanism only needlessly telegraphs the next move, giving TEC more time to organize and possibly lobby friends in the UK to undermine it all.  If we must necessarily wait on the Communion processes for just a few more months, why blow all your ammo now on a statement that will have no immediate impact on anything?  What possible good could come of that?  You would be sacrificing short-term moral victory for the true, long-term gain. 

You must be shrewd as a you stand firm.  And in that light, I read the Camp Allen statement as having an eerie sense of calm, understated resolve about it.  He who acts does not need to tell you that he acts or what he does.  His actions do the talking.  So wait and see what comes of this meet—I imagine we will find out soon enough.

Meanwhile, the GS statement is the one that—by necessity—sets the agenda for Communion action because it can only the Primates at this point that act to defrock TEC of its membership in the Communion.  And since the balance of power lies with the GS, they are the leverage needed to bring this about.  Contrary to ++Akinola’s bluster, I do believe he does know deep down that if this is to be done right, it has to be done in a Communion-wide decision.  And that to successfully bring that about will require some more pressure on +++Rowan and the Primates’ Meeting.

The next move is, truly, +++Rowan’s.  He can tell ++Schori that she will not be invited or only as an observer but he can invite, say, +Duncan as representative of the Windsor compliant partnership.  So see what the representation of the February meeting is going to look like.  That will likely come in November, when ++Schori officially becomes PB and the GS refuse her and the mess of a church she now leads.

Steve

I understand the frustration expressed here, and I especially lament the sense of loss you feel, Matt, because I know you attached great hopes to this Camp Allen meeting, particularly in light of your own sense of isolation in your non-network diocese.  But I think this is a case in which you may be looking so hard for what you expected that you may be missing the art in what you unexpectedly got.  I won’t repeat my post above, but I will suggest that, if you go back and listen to the video of Bishop Duncan from last week and attend to the careful wording of Bishop Iker as well, you’ll notice that even then they had a careful strategy of insisting that they weren’t going anywhere.  Repeatedly they positioned themselves as the genuine Episcopal Church.  This is now a chess game.  Rather than see this as a milktoast response, I see this as a bold and schrewd maneuver.  They’re going for all the marbles.  The assets, the heritage, and all those heart-broken and faithful moderates in TEC who agree with Windsor but who could never imagine turning against or away from the church they’ve loved for so many years.  A schismatic response (we’re breaking away!) plays right into the hands of the revisionists; an irenic response that says, “we are staying!” and which declares almost a quarter of the church as constituent members, actually isolates the revisionists. This forces the revisionists to self-identify as schismatics in a fashion that surely has legal implications. If, as seems likely, the signatories are declared in communion and the non-signatories are not, then the tables are turned on the revisionists. They talk of abandoned sees!  With the scenario that seems to me to be unfolding, that potential is suddenly reversed. The legal claims to property by the non-signatories, I presume, will be substantially weakened if they aren’t able to claim communion status with Canterbury and the rest of the global communion, but the signatories, who have peacefully maintained their identity as TEC, are acknowledged by Canterbury and others as a legitimate remnant.  That’s why I read this as an aggressive and masterly first move in a new phase in which legal strategy must be given high priority.

I must disagree with Matt that the letter from the Camp Allen bishops squandered the gift of the Kigali Communique.  I do so for two reasons. 

First, the Kigali Communique states that the Global South Primates are pleased with “the emergence of a wider circle of ‘Windsor Dioceses’ and urge all of them to walk more closely together and deliberately work towards the unity that Christ enjoins.”  It seems clear that the Primates recognize that this group is only in its infancy, and thus the Primates expect nothing more at this stage than that the group “walk more closely together” and “deliberately work towards” unity.  The Camp Allen letter seems appropriate in light of these expectations.

Second, the Primates declared that they will support the presence of a bishop at the February Primates Meeting to represent all dioceses (as well as churches and clergy) “who are abiding by the teaching of the Communion.”  The signatories to the Camp Allen letter are effectively saying, “we are those dioceses.”

The Global South Primates will follow through on their communique, they will insist on alternate representation for the U.S. orthodox in February, and they will begin the process of recognizing another ecclesiastical structure within the States.

Craig and Aspirant—YES!  You are exactly right. 

Craig, your chess analogy is precisely the way we should be viewing this. 

Aspirant, your read on the language of the Kigali statement is spot on.

Matt+, please come down from the ledge!!!

Steve

Also, a prediction:  There will be a handful of other signatories in the next few weeks.  And, eventually, Bishop Jenkins (LA), a wonderful and godly man, will be one of them, as well.

Sorry Steve, I am not interested in what hypothetical, covert messages might have been sent to the ABC. Requiring us to believe in stuff like that in order to redeem the meeting only underscores the cowardice of the participants in their failure to take any meaningful action in the light of day. If there has to be another of these meetings, let there be one more condition for all the participants—let them go on the record as willing to break from ECUSA before they can even attend. That ought to eliminate all the bullshitters. But then we would be left with just the Network bishops, wouldn’t we, so what’s the point? More meetings are just a waste of time and a way for the liberals to try to wear us down and play the Network against the Windsor bishops.

No, Chazzy, it is that kind of bullheaded action that is not needed.  This is not spinelessness or cowardice speaking in that statement.  There are no liberals we are dealing with at this meeting.  It is rather an organizational meeting to set up an alternative leadership with TEC to pry loose the non-repentant revisionists who, up until now, will not leave.  That is the gambit and if you are going to do that, you cannot take precipitous action.

What I do agree with is the sympathy that leaders like +Duncan, et al. are going to need a way to communicate with the faithful what the strategy is going forward without undermining the strategy.  You see, you may think privacy and confidentiality is just a ruse, but I can assure you that for any worthwhile political action it is also absolutely necessary.  We need to hear from +Duncan very soon, and I suspect we will. 

And with Craig, do not be surprised to see moves in the coming days where more bishops sign-on.  Some may be getting informed about how to join the circle of Windsor compliant bishops and may need some cover from their dioceses to make the move. 

All that will take some patience when, I know, is on precious little supply.  But do not condemn (at least not yet) these people who have been nothing but godly, faithful leaders up until now.  If you do, you are just judging a book by its cover.

Tony,
What ‘statement’ was insipid, mine or the Camp Allen release? Since I’m a big circus fan too, my intent was not to “demean” that word.  I guess I should have used the word “_______!”
For the life of me I don’t see how one can go on with all this talk, talk and more talk. What does it accomplish? I’ve always been “of action”. Some of us here in ole missippi (evidently very few and not to name a certain bishop) don’t sit on fences waitin’ for ‘all the King’s men’. I, for one left ECUSA way back when, when +DG made heretical remarks during his homily at my daughters Holy Baptism.
It didn’t take me long to see where he (and ECUSA) were headed. From the Deep South to ‘down south’.

No, Chazzy, it is that kind of bullheaded action that is not needed.  This is not spinelessness or cowardice speaking in that statement.  There are no
liberals we are dealing with at this meeting.

I agree—liberals would have shown more guts. The Windsor bishops could not have the fence separated from their butts by a team of surgeons with crowbars. The fact that you have to appeal to hypothetical, secretly brave stuff that they might have done shows me how truly awful this meeting was. No more meetings with jellyfish!

Timothy et al,
Rather than, “waiting to be rescued by others”, I have always hoped that the Network strategy to be one of growing the re-aligned Anglican presence so that it includes as many as possible.  In “defending the faith once delivered” Jude also goes on to speak of “snatching some from the fire” while we are to not even “touch the clothing” of the apostate.  We are to reach the reachable, the others we will need to leave in God’s hands (Lord have mercy). I have to trust that the Windsor’s are about growing the remnant.  It has already doubled (in terms of self-identifying Bishops); I suspect it to grow more before the Primates meeting.  No, I am not waiting to be rescued.  We in our parish can fish for a freelance Bishop as well as anyone else, but for those who desire to hold to the Catholocity of the Communion we long to follow a future that is Catholic in order more than we want our building or our priest his pension.  Before I head off to bed let me add this: I drove by the Minneapolis Convention Center today, the sight of GC 2003, and wept.  What a stain on us!  Being there in ‘03 I can recall how my progressivist friends gave us no quarter.  We can do better!  I would hope that +Duncan, the Network and the Windsor Bishops,  are making clear that the door of the ark known as the Anglican Communion is still open and all members, lay and ordained, of the North American Provinces are invited in, but that it will close in due time.

Bishop Steenson arrived at clergy conference on Wednesday evening. We also had some faithful priests from Sand Diego and AZ in attendance. Today at the only time he spoke to Camp Allen he would not take questions, but encouraged us to breath deeply until the February Primates meeting.

I believe with Greg and other less anxious voices here that a lot is contained in the words, the silences and the expressed hopes by the “Windsor Bishop’s” that signed the Camp Allen letter. They have remained consistent through out that they are the TEC and will be TEC. It is the others that are walking farther away.

Rushing to judgment without all the data is not the wisest, most faithful nor most loving way forward.

And to those that are concerned about how much I make, I work 40 hrs a week at less than $15 per hour, pay for some of my and all of Bev’s medical insurance out of this in order to support a ministry that includes driving 2hrs minimum one way at $.20 per mile. I am given $100 towards my housing expenses. To support the People of God seeking to worship Him in Spirit and Truth I’ll do whatever it takes to see that they have Communion, sound teaching and a pastor that will wok with them for growth and healing. Woe am I if I preach not the gospel!

My attitude and commitment is more common than not of those clergy that I’ve known for 40 years of ordained ministry, 37 of which have been wonderfully lived in this branch of the Church of God.

We have our resolutions here: http://www.riogrande.0catch.com/Home.html
and they include a resolution requesting APO. the Task Force on Communion Resolutions met much of the day to polish them while the rest of us drove or flew home. I’m off to sleep in preparation for a Cursillo Team meeting 100+ miles away tomorrow.

Thanks be to God for being able to live and serve at this time.

All theses events are connected. Take haeart, hope abounds!

Chazzy, you’re being very unfair to +Duncan et al., and also to me.  My scenario rests on no hypothetical communiqués, etc.  That is a misrepresentation of what Craig and I and some others have been arguing.  Rather, my view rests on sound reasoning about how the founders of Windsor compliant group—who just met for the first time!!!—are trying to carefully organize and gather support from within TEC to create the structure for removing the revisitionists from the Communion.  My assessment (and it squares with everything I’ve ever heard +Duncan say) is that they think it is better to stay in TEC and be recognized by the Communion than to leave and try to set up a parallel jurisdiction or something of that sort.  If the message is that unrepentant, revisionist bishops and their followers are not invited to Communion activities—not now, or ever—then what course is left for them?  They will have to leave the AC, perhaps join the Old Catholics in the Netherlands, as one recent rumor had it, and then agree to a splitting of properties and assets with the realigned TEC leadership.

What is dubious, right now, is the attitude of mistrust of +Duncan et al. that is pervading this comment board.  I am astonished and ashamed.  All over a statement that contained not one word of mealy-mouthed pacification of revisionists!  You’d think they’d asked Spong and Crew to join their next meeting.  Sheesh!

Bp. Duncan is saintly, steadfast, and brave.
I trust him not to sell out the orthodox.

“I understand the frustration expressed here, and I especially lament the sense of loss you feel, Matt, because I know you attached great hopes to this Camp Allen meeting, particularly in light of your own sense of isolation in your non-network diocese.”

Guys, thanks for the sympathies, but I am not all gushy & emotional about this, nor am I ready to jump off a ledge. I am speaking quite soberly when I say this is a real disaster. It is not a good thing and it sets us back. I will post an article this morning.

Steve,

No, they have not just met for the first time. That is actually part of the problem. They have sent out statements/letters already that are precisely like this one.
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=954

If this were all they were going to do, it would have been better not to meet.

”  A schismatic response (we’re breaking away!) plays right into the hands of the revisionists; an irenic response that says, “we are staying!” and which declares almost a quarter of the church as constituent members, actually isolates the revisionists.”

The history of ECUSA since 1976 proves the fallacy of this argument.  The “stay in and fight” strategy achieved nothing but further apostasy and deeper depravity.  And please don’t insult our intelligence with the old canard that the departure of the Continuers made it easier for the liberals to take over.  There were too few of us for our departure to make any difference within ECUSA.

Perhaps my expectations were already reduced when time and again, the meeting was described as a consultation.  Yet I do think things are going forward.  The GS Primates said:

“a. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to meet with the leadership of the dioceses requesting Alternative Primatial Oversight, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Network and the ‘Windsor Dioceses’, to investigate their appeal in greater detail and to develop a proposal identifying the ways by which the requested Primatial oversight can be adequately provided.”

Perhaps the “windsor” diocese merely produced a statement they believed would be sufficient to ensure an invitation to Lambeth…  The network diocese seeking APO will proceed under the cover provided by the GS.  The “windsor” diocese will apparently be supportive, but waiting to see what happens - perhaps upon the creation of the new structure.  I wonder if this weak statement ensures that it will be Bob Duncan at the Primates meeting.

The reference to pastoral care for reappraising churches was interesting.  Will this be used to seek a symmetric program for reasserting churches in reappraising diocese.  I anticipate something to develop on this matter only after APO is established.

Kigali Global South Statement:

We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA.

Windsor Bishops Camp Allen Statement:

We pledge ourselves to work with our Episcopal colleagues to care for all God’s people in our dioceses.

These people are not on the same page.  If the Camp Allen bishops read the Kigali statement before releasing their own, this reads like a “Thanks, but no thanks.”

It is my deep conviction that we should be happy and encouraged with the Camp Allen statement in itself.  (Apparently it is the broader context that is causing the hand-wringing—and can make US condemn this statement as a defeat rather than the victory it is.)  It affirms the important doctrinal points that were sloughed off in GC 2006, and it doubles our committed representatives among the Bishops; it reportedly has communications with the ABC.  I personally thought it was right not to make this an action paper but a statement of principles.  Both the GS and the Windsor Bishops, not to mention the Anglican Communion in general, know that February is the time when realignments are possible.  Isn’t this right?  I don’t necessarily see any conflict between the two recent statements except in the timeline about announcing ultimate intentions.  As the “petition” of SPREAD amply demonstrated, there are dangers in direct action at this point; it is still a time for planning and discretion, however much that may gall us, who have waited so very long already.  But I can’t help rejoicing at the gains of Camp Allen and believing that our orthodox Bishops were acting in good faith and in good counsel.

“And please don’t insult our intelligence with the old canard that the departure of the Continuers made it easier for the liberals to take over.  There were too few of us for our departure to make any difference within ECUSA.”

I certainly don’t aim to insult anyone’s intelligence, Lawrence.  Nor am I offering anyone the “canard” you suggest.  I appreciate the history and the pain to which you allude in your reference to the years since 1976.  I do not say “the departure of the Continuers will make it easier for the liberals to take over.” They have already taken over!  But the situation is quite different from 1976 precisely because the communion - people like you - has grappled with this idolatry of rationalism since at least 1971. The situation is different precisely because the tipping point is finally ‘now.’  I am saying that, if as Matt and many here have said, we are at the historic moment when, at last, the primates declare that only those willing to embrace the teaching of the Communion, manifest in the Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Windsor are in communion with them, then the continued presence of the reasserters, among whom will be the only legitimately recognized presiding bishop, changes the dynamics of power radically.  Particularly in state courts.  And particularly in the minds of those who believe that the authority of Scripture is found in the unity of the community of faith.  Many of those resolve the tension by saying, “well, if I must choose, I will choose to remain in communion with Canterbury, even if it breaks my heart.”  I have been told that by countless cradle Episcopalians in the last year. Indeed, I believe there are many bishops whose position is precisely that, and that they will ultimately become signatories once ABC shows his hand.

I concede that one possible reading of this is the pessimistic scenario you embrace.  But if you think of events in this way (suspending for the moment your skepticism and giving credit to our leaders for the ability to think and act strategically), does it not suggest a potential result remarkably like what ABC proposed this summer?

If even Dr. Witt reads it the way he apparently does, there is definitely great confusion..

If our “orthodox” guys have any fault, it is the seeming inability to communicate to the faithful.  Isn’t there anyone in that group who reads with a different eye?  So many times we’ve been lifted up, and the “seemingly” dropped on our heads.  All (at least in my opinion) because of lack of communication skill with the common folk.

Trying to read between the lines is wearisome.  AND, most importantly they don’t seem to recognize the “mistrust” that the actions of a majority of bishops has generated. The contrast between +Duncans ANGLICAN TV interview and this couldn’t be much deeper.

Its like watching a chess match (especially for those of us who don’t play”... All we know is its a good thing when our favorite captures a piece.  When he doesn’t we have to “trust” his wisdom because we don’t understand.  But because of recent experiences with other bishops, our “trust” is difficult to uphold.

There are too many secrets!  It is imperative that this situation be resolved, and soon.  I suppose the Camp Allen statement was the best that could be done under the circumstances, at least there are more bishops claiming to be “Windsor” than anyone expected, and maybe that was the main point. 

I sure don’t know…....... 
Grannie Gloria

Chef, I apologize for not being clearer.  The Camp Allen statement was insipid and comparing it to circuses is demeaning to circuses.

Second, the Primates declared that they will support the presence of a bishop at the February Primates Meeting to represent all dioceses (as well as churches and clergy) “who are abiding by the teaching of the Communion.”  The signatories to the Camp Allen letter are effectively saying, “we are those dioceses.”

My word, the last thing we need is the elder statesman of the HOB (is my chest puffed out sufficiently?) representing the orthodox.  We need Bp Duncan or Iker, not just a Windsor bishop.

And, my above “rant” reminds me of a story..  When a certain bishop came for his annual visit, the priest called the children down to the front, and talked about the many vestments etc that a bishop has..  At the end of the talk, he asked the children, “Can anyone tell us what a Bishop does?”.. The answer was not forthcoming until little Johnny waved his hand and said,  “I know, I know”.. “Well”, asked the priest, “What does a Bishop do Johnny”?

Said Johnny, “He the one who moves diagonally”...

Hmmmmmmmmm….

I think I agree with Tony about our representative being from the Network and not from the broader pool of “Windsor Bishops.”  The fact that the rest of the Windsor Bishops have not joined the Network implies that they do not approve of the strategies used by them.  It is my sense that Bishop Wimberly would prefer the strategy of the ABC over, and in place of, the strategy of the Global South…

Bill Witt,

You brought up the phrase that’s been running around in my head since yesterday—“we pledge ourselves to work with our Episcopal colleagues.”  Who do you think they are defining as their colleagues?  I’m wondering if they mean the Windsor bishops?  If so, which is my hope, then they form a much more cohesive group.  If not, then, I don’t know.  What do you think?
I’ve vacillated back and forth between disappointment in the apparent calm of the Windsor bp’s statement and the joy of the Kigali statement.  But I’m going to place my faith in the fact that I believe that they’re working in concert.  As I posted much earlier, my hope is that the GS bishops are focusing the AC on what will need to be set up by Feb., and the Windsor dioceses are saying “we’re that faithful contingent.” I imagine that there will be many conversations between now and the Jan. Windsor meeting, and then the Feb. meeting of the Primates (+ one Windsor “primate?”).

While I have little sympathy at all for Mrs. Jefferts-Schori and company, I imagine that these two statements have totally ruined their weekends. 

Any predictions on Newark?  I think they’re going to blink - but again, don’t know what to hope for.  Clarity is sometimes a double-edged sword.

Ann

While I do understand the hand wringing that is going on about the Camp Allen meeting, I do not think it is warrented. This group was never going to be able to issue anything stronger than the statement they made. Going in it was easy for me to see that there were “Windsor Bishops” who were never going to “leave” TEC. Their dioceses are too divided (and for some their minds as well). Secondly, as others have noted, there was no communication between Kigali and Camp Allen. When the Camp Allen bishops came up with their statement, they did not know the contents of the Primates’ communique.

From the beginning I saw great implicit danger in the Camp Allen meeting that I must believe was clearly seen by many of the Network bishops. They must have known that the majority of the non-ACN Windsor Bishops in attendance were not going to be willing and/or able to separate from TEC having a significantely different agenda than the ACN bishops. Some ACN bishops had to be concerned about attending, but felt they had no choice, fearing that without them there, there would emerge an outcome that would further divide this fragile coalition.

The letter that emerged I think represents the best that this group was ever going to do recognizing the vastly different agendas. What many on this blog (and many other blogs) wanted to be the outcome of this meeting I believe was never going to take place from the start. The outcome is probably as positive as it could be. There is no further open public division between the ACN and Windsor bishops and the letter does neither side any major damage.

From my vantage point I believe that the resolve of the ACN bishops (at least most of them) is higher than it has ever been. In light of the Kigali statement, we can see great encouragement. We are on the very verge of a new Anglican jurisdiction in North America. I very much sympathize with those in orthodox parishes in revisionist dioceses. From all I know and have read, despite Camp Allen, the leaders of the ACN have not forgotten about you. I strongly believe that both Bishop Iker and Bishop Duncan have lost none of their strength and resolve.

Regarding concerns about what negative message the Global South will take away from the Camp Allen letter, I think we can be assured that there will be (or has been) clear communication between the ACN bishops and the Global South so there will be no misunderstanding.

I really believe that the consternation that has befallen commentators to this list is the result of very unrealistic expectations of what this meeting could or would accomplish. All this is this one priest’s opinion, anyway.

Sometimes, we need to have the ‘where-with-all’ to recognize victory or defeat. The only victory I can see is to side with the un-dying Word of God. Anything less is defeat. What we do not need is another ‘reign-out’.

Vernon, good analysis.  Maybe I’m too naive to understand all the negative comments.  If a group of bishops say:  we affirm Windsor; Lambeth 1.10 is the teaching of the church; Jesus is the way, the truth and the life—all the stuff GC 2006 couldn’t swallow—what’s the problem?  This is what the GS leaders want to hear.  +Duncan has said “we are the Episcopal church in waiting” and Kigali said “it’s time to recognize a new Anglican presence in the US” —why are those seen by so many of you as contrary views?  All of us sideline/Monday morning quarterbacks maybe ought to stop the chatter, give thanks to God for faithful leaders in GS and ACN, and stay in prayer.  I am encouraged by both statements, especially by Kigali, and quite willing to wait for the February primates meeting in trust that God is in control.

I believe that the Network bishops went into the Camp Allen meeting with fervent prayers that one of the outcomes would be to convince/give the opportunity to those bishops who, in their hearts, believe in the Windsor Report and Lambeth 1.10 to stand up for the orthodox position.  What has come out of the CA meeting is a report, but a report with a significantly larger number of signatures than such a report would have had if the meeting had just been Network bishops.  That in itself is a great answer to prayer.  Perhaps many of those bishops have been a disappointment to us in this war. 
But they have signed on.  What are their motives?
We pray that their motives are pure and driven by the Holy Spirit.  Is that a realistic expectation?  Those of you in the respective diocese who know your bishops may be able to answer that.  I think we must pray that their signatures truly reflect what they are signing on to.  I also believe that all the signatories knew full well what was coming out of Kigali and therefore knew the likely consequences that are, in the Lord’s Will,  going to fall into place.
I believe that we have to see the larger picture which reflect two interacting themes that form a whole.  The theme from Kigali and that from Camp allen.  Don’t be depressed at the ‘low key’  statement from Camp Allen.  Don’t feel that the Kigali statement
have been wasted words that the “Windsor Bishops” are too chicken to jump to.  I don’t believe that is true.

oops!  should have said:
“...Lambeth 1.10 the guts and courage to stand up for the orthodox position…”

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all those who have left the Episcopal Church over the past 40 years+ Could be included in this new thing?  Perhaps even one province embracing all of North America?”

Wonderful outcome for which to hope and pray, Frances.

Having been away for nearly a full day I was shocked at some of the negativity in terms of the CA statement. I have to agree with Vernon+ and Dumb Ox - this is a moment for celebration. The number of Bishops formally declaring themselves for the Windsor path has doubled! And could even have the momentum to increase. The GS will have a clear picture of who wants to remain in the AC, and more importantly the Primates in February will have a clear scorecard. I suspect the only reason for a second meeting is to give more fence-sitters an opportunity to come in out of the cold.

The strategery to become recognized as the faithful, non-schismatic remnant within TEC is exactly the right path. The choice made at GC06 to “walk apart” will brand the revisionists as the schismatics they are. Then the realignments can begin.

Gulfstream. The number has not doubled. IT has remained virtually the same since march of 05.

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all those who have left the Episcopal Church over the past 40 years+ Could be included in this new thing?  Perhaps even one province embracing all of North America?”

This is the goal of the Common Cause partnerships of the ACN.  Yes, it would be wonderful.

Thoughts.
1.  Mr Griffith claims the Kigali statement was circulated at Camp Allen at least “several hours” before the release of the Camp Allen statement.  Honestly, isn’t that way too late for it to be reflected in the Camp Allen statement in any way?  For example, Bishop Duncan had returned to Ptttsburgh by Friday morning.  Can we be sure there were enough bishops still around to debate a response to Kigali?  The Camp Allen statement was undoubtedly “completed” on Thursday.  Knowing Stand Firm’s absolute requirment for openess regarding sources why haven’t they said how they KNOW the Kigali statement was considered by the Camp Allen bishops before the statement was released?

2.  Other than the Network bishops (and perhaps not even all of them) who would have endorsed an immediate fracture in TEC?  Wouldn’t it have been a bit embarrassing to have 5 or 6 bishops sign one statement and the rest another, which certainly would have happened?

3.  We really don’t know what went on yet.  I have complete trust in Bishop Duncan and am not yet ready to feel betrayed…

Nevin,

We are obviously still in a “fog of war” moment, but we’re standing by our information that the Kigali statement was made available to bishops at Camp Allen before it adjourned.

“I stand by Bishop Duncan”

I think everyone who is on this thread stands by Bishop Duncan.  It’s just this milktoast statement that is making people gag. 

I really think part of the annoyance with this particular statement is that it seems a major step to a ‘Darker time’ - the Age of the Empire.  Fact is that the Rebel Alliance is on the move and isn’t under ECUSA control anymore.  Pretending we are is just not useful or helpful to where people want to be. 

- sorry for the Star Wars inference - but it does come to mind…

GulfStream, I appreciate your sentiments, but there is zero chance that a court will ever displace the TEC power structure on the basis of the “not part of the AC” argument. That may help with individual property fights here and there, but there is zero chance of sweeping TEC clean from the inside.  The only hope is the establishment of a new recognized US Anglican entity, outside of TEC, that will provide a domestic home for those that are leaving and those that have already left.  That requires maintaining momentum among the declining number of orthodox still following this fight and meeting expectations of our primary sponsors and supporters (the Global South). I fear this statement failed to do either.

“Made available before it adjourned”- nice, but what does that mean?  Was there time to consider a response?  When exactly did the meeting “officially” end?  Some people seem to feel that Kigali was deliberately blown off by the Camp Allen bishops.  Is THAT an accurate assessment?  Anything else is irrelevant.

Sorry to hear standing with Bishop Duncan nauseates…  seems like a good option to me right now…

Totally off subject, but the posting date for comments is off by 24 hours.  I thought I’d lost a day!

I posted the following over at T19 and have no response.  Any thoughts here?
  ====
The audience of the Camp Allen statement seems to me to be most obviously the ABC and the GS (regardless of its ostensible address).  What it in effect did was affirm that “we are Windsor bishops and will do whatever it takes to stay in the Communion.”  That is itself no small matter for the non-Network attendees.  Only a first step, but a necessary one. 

Consider the following scenario:

When the Primates meet, they declare themselves out of Communion with ECUSA except for those dioceses that are Windsor-compliant and parishes in other dios which have or will indicate their wish to become compliant by contacting an instrument of the Communion directly.

They also approve establishment of a Communion Commissary (or something) to provide Primatial Oversight to the APO dioceses and represent them in Communion functions, since the ECUSA PB can no longer do so.

At that point, the Windsor bishops are in the Communion but unrepresented.  Their only rational action is to ask to be put on the Commissary’s list. 

The situation is now that 20+ dioceses are officially part of ECUSA but do not recognize its Presiding Bishop.  Their diocesan canons, for the most part, do not specifically subject them to ECUSA canons in a hierarchical fashion, and any declaration of a see vacant would be difficult with a fifth of the HoB — including several senior members — unalterably opposed and many others reluctant to fight within the “old boy [and girl] network.”

If 815 did succeed in declaring a see vacant, they would then face having to enforce it in court, with few precedents and fewer facts in their favor, and Standing Committees and the bulk of congregants firmly against them.  So the situation from the ECUSA point of view would not look promising.

But from the Communion point of view, the situation looks simpler.  Either the Episcopal Church as a national entity has simply ceased to exist within the Communion, so any geographical area not within a Windsor diocese is open to Communion evangelism, or the Episcopal Church now consists of the Windsor dioceses and the Commissary, which leaves all other American sees vacant, which again means that any geographical area not within a Windsor diocese is open to Communion evangelism.  This provides a canonically neat solution to the Seventh Conv parish problem.

And if ECUSA is foolish enough to go to court to declare a see vacant, the question of who is the schismatic here will have an unmistakable answer.

Note that this does not require formal creation of any “new province” or the like; in either case, after a decent interval, the Windsor dioceses can decide to hold a General Convention according to the canons of the Episcopal Church and elect a Presiding Bishop, at which point the Commissary is presented with a gold watch with Titus 1:9 engraved on the back and thanked deeply and sincerely for his help. 

Thus without any specific action to “form a new province” or “restructure the church,” it has happened.  And everyone in the pews will believe they’re still Episcopalians and never stopped being one, and they’ll be right.  The revisionist dioceses will simply become irrelevant.

How likely is this scenario?  Matt+?  Brad?

Craig, I read your post at T19 earlier and didn’t respond then, but, if you review my own postings here from last night and this morning, you’ll see that you and I see these events quite similarly.  However, we represent a minority view.  I think the diversity of opinion by a group who are united, I presume, on the issues of biblical authority and the teachings of the communion, is fascinating.  Why do some see a pig and others a lion? Given the track record of those who see a pig, it clearly cannot be due to a failure of imagination.  And I don’t yet believe our lion is a sow.  So I am wondering if the difference is due to different theological lenses that color our assumptions about the telos of all this…

I guess it was unfortunate that the two meetings were held nearly simultaneously.  As nearly as I can tell the Camp Allen meeting was effectively over by Thursday evening and the statement completed by then, no matter when it was actually released.  The fact that Bishop Duncan was holding a clergy meeting in Pittsburgh Friday morning tells me that there was not time to seriously consider the outcome of Kigali at Camp Allen.  I’m fairly confident that at least the Network bishops had no desire to kick dirt in the face of Kigali as the timing of the release of the statements might seem to indicate…

What it in effect did was affirm that “we are Windsor bishops and will do whatever it takes to stay in the Communion.”

Anything? Say, for instance, join the Network???</i> If this is not precisely what the Network was organized to do, then what is it, and why exactly aren’t the Wimberlys of the world signing up?

Let me make sure I have this right:

—Commenters here are criticizing the Network bishops for signing such a mild statement, especially given the strong, specific demands made by the Global South primates in Kigali.

—One of the key criticisms is that the Network bishops signing this statement have undercut the orthodox cause by signaling that they would settle for relatively modest tinkering with the status quo.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I understand the reasoning but question whether it applies here. In building bridges to potential allies, leaders often sign on to statements that don’t go nearly as far as the leaders believe necessary.

Take the U.S. government’s efforts to secure international condemnation of Iran’s nuclear program. The Bush Administration opposes that program in the strongest possible terms. It will probably not relinquish any of its options for countering that program, including unilateral military action. Yet in the interest of building a broader front against that program (e.g., with the European Union, Russia, and China), the Administration has supported and would support statements that don’t go nearly as far as the Administration believes essential. The same is true of the Administration’s efforts to rein in North Korea: to get essential Chinese support, the Administration would sign onto statements that demand only a fraction of what it believes necessary.

Other governments understand what it going on. They recognize that joint statements you sign when building alliances don’t necessarily represent your bottom line.

Isn’t the Camp Allen statement a classic exercise in coalition-building?

If so, then the real significance of the statement is probably not that the Network bishops signed it but that wavering non-Network bishops (such as Bp. Wimberly) signed.

I have just completed a lengthy telephone conversation with Bishop Iker, which i will be turning into an article as soon as I can.

And now might be a good time to define “as soon as I can.” Please remember who we are here and what we do. Matt, Sarah, Andy, Jackie and I are volunteers, fulfilling what we see as a call to the Anglican community in America. We are trying our best to shoot straight with everyone, to provide the best intel we can as soon as we can, in the hopes that it might help us all make better sense of the complex events that make up this debate. As you can see with my understanding of the word “circulated,” sometimes small things create big ripples whenever controversial information is obtained about important events.

But - tonight is pizza night, and we’re going over to some frie4nds and tossing dough into the air with their kids. There is a frighteningly high probability the adults will drink some wine. So it will be some time tonight before I can get to the +Iker interview, and it may be tomorrow afternoon.

I would like for everyone to here and elsewhere (and that means everyone at T1:9) to stop hammering on Matt for an ambiguous detail the problem with which is entirely due to a syntactical misunderstanding on my part. Bishop Iker was very forthcoming with his recounting of the Camp Allen meeting, and I assure you that what he had to say will shed tremendous light on the statement and what it means for us. I can say now that in general it’s very good news, but there remain serious questions about what it means for the future of the Episcopal Church; questions Matt anticipated and articulated very well.

I’m going to close off comments for now on this and Matt’s otehr thread, in order to give him a break and to let everyone cool down. I appreciate your patience, and I commend to everyone to go and play with your kids or grandkids, read a book, take a walk… just relax.

I see that [a href=“http://themcj.com/2637”]CJ has linked[/a] to my last comment. I wanted to let him and everyone else know I’ve finished assembling the interview with Bishop Iker. Seeing as how it’s past midnight, and given the turbulence surrounding my last contribution to the debate, I’m going to sleep on it, and Matt and I will go over it with a fine-tooth comb before we publish it. We’ll try to get it out some time tomorrow.

I agree with Irenaeus’ post above.  Coalition building is not a bad thing, even if it was a favorite term of ex-Pres. Clinton.  The fact that non Network Bishops are on board is a positive development.

I’ll admit to being a bit disappointed, but my main reaction, even now, nearly two days after the Camp Allen state came out, was confusion.

The fact is that the Camp Allen group did not get to see the Kigali statement until fairly late in their conference.  While I can see why so many are concerned by Camp Allen’s failure to embrace Kigali’s call for a new Anglican province in North America, I don’t think it’s fair to call this a rejection.  That would have required that Kigali come out before Camp Allen began so they could have started their deliberations with Kigali on the table.

Yes, Camp Allen was weak, but that was just as likely a consequence of bad timing as a result of weakness on the part of the bishops at Camp Allen.

This was a swing and a miss, and an ugly one at that, but it’s a long ballgame folks.  There’s no reason they won’t hit a home run next time.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the Bishop of Alaska signed this statement and is also a member of the board of directors for The Witness?

I’ve been reading this thread while the film “A Night To Remember” (the 1958 classic about the Titanic) is on one of the movie channels—a delightful, ironic coincidence.  The Camp Allen letter, once again, appears filled with false hope that the “orthodox” faction within TEC, like the Titanic, won’t sink.  The Global South statement, like the Carpathia, proclaims “we’re on our way to help—don’t lose hope.”  In the meanwhile, my wife, daughter, and I have already left TEC…and, having found a new church as our spiritual lifeboat, we watch the sinking with a mixture of dread and fascination.  We know that there is no going back, as doing so would be to our spiritual ruin.  And yet we cannot turn our eyes away, even though it is increasingly evident that any help that arrives from elsewhere in the Communion will arrive too late…other than to possibly pick up survivors.