But Michael, how about responding to what Anis has actually said?

Your response on “majorities” is irrelevant because nobody is suggesting that there should be majority rule.

Your response on the ACC doesn’t take into account that the criticism of it has NOTHING to do with the fact that it includes laity and clergy, but has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there is a built in bias in representation to the Western liberal provinces there.  Which of the following committees would you regard as more representational in TEC?

Committee A consisting of a mix of laity, clergy and bishops with 3 delegates each from Central Florida, South Carolina, Albany, Dallas and Northern Indiana, and 1 delegate each from L.A., California, Virginia, Connecticut and Massachusetts;

or

Committee B consisting of bishops only but with representation of 1 bishop from each domestic U.S. diocese.

If you choose B, does that mean that you oppose lay and clergy involvement, or does that simply mean that you recognize that there is a serious over-representation of certain dioceses?

Your response on the west vs. south is empty posturing.  It gets tiring to hear you repeat that everyone who disagrees with you are “hysterical right wingers” Michael.  You strike me as being as fundamentalist and judgmental as the caricatures you make up of those you accuse of being so.  Why don’t you try to understand the perspective of your opponents instead of just name-calling all the time?

And once again, nowhere have you actually addressed the specific issues that Anis has raised.

There is broad agreement here about the problematic nature of a majority system. Why go on about it? The real question is why the consensus of TEC trumps the consensus of the AC?

But of course the “majority vote” of the ACC is precisely the thing in question. The West says, “It is fair, we set it up to be fair. One province one vote, see?” But then ensures that the process accomplishes their desire. Sour grapes or justice denied?

It is interesting that the one Instrument with clergy and laity involved is the one being attacked.  It is not surprising, but it is interesting.  I have long said that the whole IU thing was really a ploy to allow the Primates to grab power, so it is amusing to me that many here think that the ACC has done that.

Here is that paradox again where progressives and conservatives agree: limit the power of bishops. One calls it a power grab by primates and the other calls it getting back to the Bible, but neither really approves of bishops.

Well the West gets blamed for everything, so I was just making us a caricature for all that the ++Anis group hates.  He will not even sit at table for a meeting with people from TEC?  Jesus even sat at table with Tax Collectors, what kind of behavior is that on the part of ++Anis.

Does the argument about power dynamics and the place of post-colonialism mean nothing? The GS is refusing to sit in the back of the bus, or to take their place at the lunch counters, and the “powers that be” don’t like it.

That ++Anis and the ACI cannot even allow the Provinces to speak on the Covenant is a place of weakness.  It says that they are not willing to hear the responses from the Provinces.  Instead they will just yank themselves out and have their own party.

You have read your own party line, rather than Bp Anis’ actual letter. They remain committed to the Covenant process, while critiquing the flaws within it.

But you see they way my opposition operates is that unless you simply jump and obey their imperious commands you are trash, and I expect that the ++ABC now understands this better than anyone.

This is debatable, but it is interesting that this same criticism has often been leveled at the “listening process”: listen until you agree with us about human sexuality.

[James and I were typing at the same time!]

I have become convinced in reading the various comments about the resignation - here and elsewhere - that one gift that we very much need is the gift of patience. The final version of the Anglican Covenant has been out for less than two months and no Church of the Communion has, as far as I know, adopted or decline to adopt it. Whatever mechanisms there are in the Covenant to deal with disputes within the Communion will not be available until the adoption process is completed. In ECUSA only the General Convention can adopt the Covenant and there are some who believe that the GC can’t do that without amending the Constitution. So, the earliest GC could act is 2012 and, if amending the Consitution is necessary, adoption could not happen until 2015. Other member Churches may be able to act sooner, and I wonder if the CofE’s adoption would require an act of Parliament.

For the present, there are no mechanisms for the kind of disciplining of the Churches in North America that some want. Neither the Primates nor the Anglican Consultative Council have clear authority to impose sanctions or penalties. When the Windsor Report asked that representatives of ECUSA withdraw for a while from participation in the the ACC, the request was honored and at the next meeting ECUSA representatives were present but did not vote. The ACC could amend its own list of members to exclude those from ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. The Archbishop of Canterbury might be able to declare that the CofE is no longer in communion with the ECUSA and the AC0ofC. Short of those two possibilities, which would seem very unlikely, we are left with the situation of member Churches of the Communion who are, de facto, no longer in Communion with one another. Those who want quick fixes to problems that have been decades in the making are going to be disappointed.

I do think that there has been a lack of transparency in the ACC, especially around the structural changes. So far I have been unable to find a copy of the new Articles of Association and think that it should be available. I also think that the schedule of members needs revision as at least one fairly large member Church, Kenya, has only two represenatives, rather than the three that ECUSA and Nigeria and Uganda and several others have.

It is interesting to recall that in the discussion of the Windsor Report that Ian Douglas and Paul Zahl had (Understanding the Windsor Report: Two Leaders in the American Church Speak Across the Divide) Douglas pointed out that Zahl’s desire for the Primates to fix the problem was somewhat unexpected, given Zahl’s evangelical convictions. Anglicans of all sorts like having Bishops, although most of us would rather not give them too much power, at least until we are looking for someone to fix things.

I have asserted elsewhere that those who want the Primates to “take charge” need to entertain the possibility that once that authority is granted the Primates they may exercise it in unexpected ways, perhaps deciding that only one way of understanding the Atonement is possible. We have muddled along as Churches that are episcopally led and synodically governed. It is, I grant, an untidy way to order our common life, but I, for one, don’t see any better alternatives.

I have become convinced in reading the various comments about the resignation - here and elsewhere - that one gift that we very much need is the gift of patience.

I want patience, and I want it now!

Bp Anis’ resignation is a kind of impatience, but his comments show that he is still committed to the process. Again, it is clear that he has joined a significant group of the GS who are “waiting.”

It’s important to remember in this discussion that Bishop Anis did not attend the GAFCON meeting because, as he publically said at the time, he did’t believe that they were going in the right direction.  Here we are a few years later, Anis was appointed to the JSC, he saw that the JSC is a sham, and he resigns. The question I have at this point is what is his attitude now toward the GAFCON group?

I don’t think that Abp. Anis’ resignation was prompted by a lack of patience.  I think it was prompted by what appeared to him to be a dishonest process.  His own words reveal that.  He specifically did not attend GAFCON and push for action down that road, because he was willing to wait on (what he thought then were honest) Communion processes.  However, he has now realized that the Communion processes appear to be dishonest and geared to thwart Communion discernment.

Regarding the Covenant, and TEC’s response to it, I think it is duplicitous in the extreme to suggest that TEC get a pass until 2015.  While it may be true that POSSIBLY a constitutional amendment is required in order to formally sign on to the Covenant, TEC is very well capable RIGHT NOW of honoring the Covenant by accepting Communion discernment.  This is Dr. Radner’s point.  The Glasspool consent is the test.  If TEC makes it clear that it will NOT follow Communion discernment NOW, then why should anyone believe that it has any credible intention of following such discernment later?  This is just more game-playing.

Let me give you an analogy.  Suppose that a global climate-change treaty was signed, which included the USA signing.  Let’s suppose it called for cuts of 50% to the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions at the time of each country’s ratification of the treaty.  Suppose then, that the President then said “well, ratification doesn’t occur until the Senate ratifies it.  I will put that off for 3 years, and in the meantime, we will provide heavy government subsidies to construct lots of polluting factories.  Then, when we have doubled our current greenhouse gas production, the Senate can ratify the treaty, and we won’t have lost out on anything.”  How credible would the President’s commitment to the climate-change treaty be?  Who would trust that the US was an honest ratifier?  Clearly, in such a situation, if the President would be committed to global discernment on this issue, he would issue executive orders to begin following the terms of the treaty IMMEDIATELY to the extent he could.

Anis is not demanding an immediate resolution here.  He IS demanding that past commitments be honored, and that an honest, open and representative process take place so that the Covenant when passed will have credibility and those Provinces which have accepted the Covenant will have done so credibly.  If TEC has no intention of honoring Communion discernment, then let them say so honestly, and let the rest of the Communion get on with being a communion in which its members submit to the greater discernment.  If TEC wants to go it alone, then let them say so honestly, but let them also accept the consequences that such a “go it alone” decision brings.

Do not confuse patience with gullibility.

Interesting conclusion from a flawed argument.  Jesus had no problem associating with the tax collectors and sinners.  He did have problems with the scribes and the Pharisees who so perverted the Judaism of his day as to make it mean the opposite of what God, the prophets, etc intended it to be.  It was not even that he would not sit down with some of these - it is that he was critical and judged those who perverted the religion.  It was those who perverted the religion that he opposed.  The breaking of communion is an attempt at the same action on the part of some provinces of the AC.

Well the West gets blamed for everything, so I was just making us a caricature for all that the ++Anis group hates.  He will not even sit at table for a meeting with people from TEC?  Jesus even sat at table with Tax Collectors, what kind of behavior is that on the part of ++Anis.

As later writers in this thread have pointed out it is now ++Anis who is pointing out the sham that he has discovered in trying to be part of a process of mending the fabric of the Communion.  Will he now side with the GAFCON folk?  That is the question and I hope he will for one.  As to the honesty of TEC - that will indeed be displayed in the Glasspool consent process.

Oh - BTW I would not share table fellowship either with destroyers of the Christian Faith.

Interesting times!

James Wirrel - 03 February 2010 03:23 PM

I don’t think that Abp. Anis’ resignation was prompted by a lack of patience.

I did not intend to imply that the resignation was an indication of impatience. My concern has been that some Anglicans appear - to me at least - to be looking for a quick fix to the problems in the Communion. The Anglican Covenant will not and cannot, IMV, provide such a quick fix. Even if adoption of the Covenant could happen Communion-wide within the next year, I think that it would take a great deal more time for the Covenant to renew the bonds of affection among the Churches of the Communion. If the Covenant were to prove to be simply an instrument to enforce a narrow orthodoxy and to limit theological diversity within the Communion, then it might well prove to be the quick fix that some conservatives seem to want, but it would,IMV, bring about the death of the Communion as a fellowship of Christians who valued comprehensiveness. Narrowly defined orthodoxy runs, again IMV, the risk of a triumphalism which would severely limit our participation in ecumenical and interfaith conversations. Already I wonder if, seemingly unable to carry on respectful conversations with other Anglicans, we can expect to be able to have any meaningful conversations with members of other religious communities. The latest issue of The Anglican Theological Review has an excellent essay by Christopher Duraisingh which draws upon the work of Asian theologians to explore how we might move from Church-shaped missions to becoming mission-shaped Churches.

Daniel Weir - 04 February 2010 03:18 PM

If the Covenant were to prove to be simply an instrument to enforce a narrow orthodoxy and to limit theological diversity within the Communion, then it might well prove to be the quick fix that some conservatives seem to want, but it would,IMV, bring about the death of the Communion as a fellowship of Christians who valued comprehensiveness.

Well, leaving aside the natural urge to refer to the “narrow gate” spoken of in scripture, it is the case that “narrow” can be taken to mean “whatever rejects some view that I hold dear.” To take everyone’s favorite dead horse, I don’t think Spong’s extreme Tillichian program enjoys that much approval even in ECUSA, but if his more egregious theses were explicitly denounced by the communion as a whole, I can guarantee that this denunciation would be characterized as “narrow” by a lot of vocal people, including those who reject Spong’s theses but who don’t want to risk having their own heresies challenged. The obvious meta-issue is that the communion cannot NOW survive the comprehension that is being pressed upon it by some of its member churches, so that comprehension itself is not something we can comprehend anymore.

There is narrow and then there is narrow.

The narrowing that I see as dangerous is the move to make one interpretation of Scripture on an issue the only acceptable one. A case in point in some traditions is the subsitutionary interpretation of the Atonement. Suggesting to some Christians that there are other ways to understand that doctrine can bring accusations of heresy. What is, in one generation, the dominant position on an issue may, in a subsequent generation, become a minority position or disappear altogether. Slavery was widely accepted among Episcopalians in the early 19th century and the Presiding Bishop condemned those who opposed slavery. By the end of the century one would have had trouble finding an Episcopalian who would admit to being in favor of slavery.

In 1920 the Bishops at Lambeth issued “an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race.” Ten years later the Bishops issued the following statement:  “Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles.” While I have not studied the history of the discussions of artificial contraception in the Communion during that decade, I can only assume that there was discussion, even though the resolution passed in 1920 could have been seen as settling the matter. I don’t think that those who dissented from what might have been called - incorrectly, IMV - “the mind of the Communion” on this issue and advocated and/or used artificial contraception were seen as “communion-breaking,” even though the 1920 resolution accuses those persons of promoting evil.

Resolution I.10 of the Lambeth Conference in 1998 is a clear expression of the mind of the majority of the Bishops in attendance, just as the 1920 resolution on artificial contraception was. Neither resolution, I would suggest, can be assumed to express the mind of the Communion forever. People of faith, when presented with new information or changed circumstances, often change their minds about matters which are of importance to them. And in some cases one might discern that the Holy Spirit was at work.