The Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between matters of theological substance (women can’t be priests in the Roman Rite) and matters of ecclesiastical discipline (married men can’t be priests in the Roman Rite). Matters of discipline can be waived, as clerical celibacy can under the Pastoral Provision and Ordinariates, but matters of substance can’t. Men who aren’t priests can’t celebrate the Eucharist or pronounce Nuptial Blessings, so men who aren’t RC priests can’t perform RC weddings. That said, the necessity for a wedding of any sort is a matter of discipline and not a matter of substance. Many, if not most, Catholic marriages before 1563 were contracted directly between the parties (with or without other witnesses present) and only blessed later if at all. Nevertheless, the couple was regarded as validly married the moment that they entered into an agreement to immediately undertake the obligations of the married state.

After the Council of Trent, Roman Catholics could only be married through a ceremony witnessed and solemnized by a RC priest. [The Church of England, incidentally, retained the old rule until 1753, and many North American jurisdictions still recognize the validity of nonceremonial marriages.] Therefore, if one of the parties is considered to be RC under their Canon Law, they must be married in valid Catholic form (in the parish church by the parish priest using the Roman Rite) unless place and form have been waived by proper authority. If neither party is RC, they aren’t subject to RC disciplinary rules, so they can be married anywhere using any form they please, so long as the essential element remains—an agreement between the parties to immediately undertake the obligations of matrimony as the Church understands them. As with baptism, the sacramental validity of Anglican marriages does not imply anything about the validity of…

James-

You are right that the Roman Catholic Church’s rules are that for a marriage to be recorded in the Roman Catholic’s parish it has to be in a Roman Catholic Church and be conducted according to the Roman Catholic liturgy. Dispensation from place and form are required for any Roman Catholic who wants his/her marriage recorded in the parish. The question is not validity, but marriages are, I would guess, seen as irregular when they aren’t according to the rules.

While serving in a heavily Roman Catholic city, I once called a priest whose parishioner was to be married to one of my parishioners in our parish church. I said that I hoped he would be able to help them with the paperwork for applying for dispensation from place and form. He was amazed that I knew about those dispensations. I said that I would be a fool not to know how the dominant church in the city did business. I don’t think he liked me much, but the couple did get the dispensations and I officiated at the wedding.

Among the oddest use of those rules was the insistence that a married couple in my parish have their marriage blessed in a Roman Catholic Church before Catholic Charities would allow them to adopt a child. The husband had been a Roman Catholic, but had been received into the Episcopal Church years before, and the wife was a cradle Episcopalian. They were not happy with the requirement, but I urged them to go ahead. I was present at the blessing service in the Roman Catholic Church with which we had a covenant relationship.

One of the advantages of the Roman Catholic rules is that it provided priests an easy response to requests for weddings at the country club…

What is true, as far I understand Roman Catholic sacramental theology, is that the only sacraments celebrated in TEC that the Roman Catholioc Church recognizes as valid are the two which don’t absolute require a priest: baptism and matrimony.

Daniel - I have some friends who are a mixed-background couple looking to get married.  She is a practicing Catholic, he is an agnostic, inactive “Methodist”.  She is very insistent on doing (most) things according to the Roman bureaucratic standards.  I helped them examine the Roman rules as regards matrimony and whether marriages conducted outside of the Roman church are considered valid.  From what I could see, there is absolutely no preference given to Anglican or Episcopal clergy as against any other Protestant clergy.  Unless the Roman bishop gives explicit permission to the couple to have a non-Roman clergyperson perform the wedding service, then a non-Roman wedding is not considered valid in the Roman Church, and a subsequent “validator” service needs to be held in a Roman church by Roman clergy.

The long and short of it is, that I think that the only TEC sacrament recognized in the Roman church is baptism, for the reasons you stated.

“If we look at histories, heresies run themselves out after about 500 years. I believe we are seeing the last gasp of the Reformation in the mainline Protestant groups.”

What a jack@$$ thing to say.  So now that there are “Anglican Ordinariates” we throw respectful language and ecumenism out the window?  If that’s the case, then I am starting my ticking clock with 1870 for papal infallibility.

It’s clear that Mr. Beck wants people to abandon Christianity altogther - or to embrace a “Christianity” that ignores the prophets of Israel, many of the teaching of Jesus, and the teachings of the Church.

Thanks for sharing this, Kevin. You and I have talked about bits and pieces of our stories together over the years, but it is good to see it in an orderly form. Bless you, my brother in Christ!

As a layman who rarely comments I have been chewing on this and Hauerwas’ article for about a day.  All of these things are way above my non-pay grade, but I would like to throw out a few ideas.

The thought that occured to me this morning was “what if the puck has simply flown into the stands?!”  Perhaps I am extending the metaphor too far here, but we have to recognize that we are so far afield of where we were that most of our questions or answers may not even be relevant.

As a musician (who fled the Baptist churches as the quality of music took a nose-dive) I am always amazed at the concept that if we just got rid of “x” or “y” that would fix our problems.  The church in which I was baptized started using “praise music” nearly 15 years ago, and has watched their attendance decline from 200 to 70 on a Sunday.  My current Episcopal parish added a Rite II Sunday service, got an adult choir (instead of just the Men and Boys), killed Morning Prayer and Evensong on Sundays, and started a topical Sunday forum with big-name speakers.  We have successfully replaced everyone who was alienated and left. 

At the same time, many of the “shrines:” St Paul’s K Street, The Advent in Boston, or St Thomas 5th do not seem to be in crisis as individual parishes.  And yes, all of this is anecdotal, but I will take a good anecdote over a church growth specialist any day.

The truth that we are facing is not simply that this is a post-Christian society, it is that the Christians that are left are often radical Congregationalists whose understanding of the catholic faith (as Dan+ so wonderfully outlined) is impaired at…

The American Protestant belief in belief is not unique in history. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians Anthony Thiselton cites Karl Barth to the effect that the same problem existed in Corinth. “The church is God’s growing “field,” God’s planned “construction,” God’s inner shrine (1 Cor 3:9, where qeouv, of God, stands three times in an emphatic word order). Karl Barth captures the tone magnificiently: “The main defect” at Corinth was the belief of the addressees “not in God, but in their own belief in God and in particular leaders.” (NIGTC, 1 Corinthians @ p. 76; Eerdmans Publishing; 2000) Thiselton’s quotation of Barth is from Barth’s The Resurrection of the Dead (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1933)

Perhaps we would do well to pay really close attention to the Corinthian correspondence.

Good response Dan.

My thinking is:
First to declare that there are no sacred cows institutionally. 
Then find out what is our purpose - to see the world reconciled to God in Christ - conversion. 
Then, what does it take to get there?  Preaching with a view to conversion.
Meanwhile while we are “getting there” make sure that those converted become true disciples of Jesus Christ through teaching the Scriptures as did the Apostles.  Plus how to pray and to inter-act with the world “out there.”
Never of course forgetting the power belongs to the Spirit of God and that Jesus is “Head” of the Church.

My sadness is that the sacred cows of the institutional Church have become in idols.  These detract form the mission of the Church.

With the demise of the mainline churches and the growth of the evangelicals and Romans in the west + what God is doing in the Global South, I would tend to say throw out the lot, cathedrals, fancy buildings, pointy hatted ones and all.  Time has come when judgement falls on the household of God, so take our licking and get it right.  Much of what we seem to be about is like trying to swim in a suit of armor!

Retirement and the mission field are such a blessing!  Come join in.

Wow.

I think strategic thinking is not above our pay grades - whether we are parish priests or laity. While Mead’s prescription - and I’m not sure he would call it that - may seem too sweeping, there is much truth in the assertion that our structures get in the way of mission. We have - as suggestd in an essay by Christopher Duraisingh in the lates Anglican Theological Review - to move from church-shaped mission to mission-shaped church. Much of the most interesting and promising strategic thinking and action is happening, not on a denominational level, but at the local level. Fresh Expressions in the UK, while officially blessed by Canterbury, is a grassroots movement, as are the various emerging church efforts in the US. Ancient Faith, Future Mission: Fresh Expressions in the Sacramental Tradition has essays about both the UK and US efforts. One of the editors of that book, Stephanie Spellers, is the lead organizer - an interesting title - for the Crossing, a new congregation at the Cathedral in Boston. I was able to worship there on one Thursday eveninmg during my 2008 sabbatical and was impressed by the quality of the worship and by the fact that the community was in the midst of developing a rule of life. What was also interesting about the Crossing was that Stephanie and others were frequently at the Tuesday Eucharist at the Societry of Saint John the Evangelist.

One of the places where I agree most strongly with Mead is in his comments about diocesan staffing. About a year ago I reminded my bishop that the earliest bishops in TEC were often also rectors of parishes - as was my great-great uncle the first Bishop of Maine and, I suspect, his younger brother, the first bishop of Quincy. At…

I, too, am taken by the “where the puck will be” idea. But one thing that must be clearly understood, is, for us, what is the puck. The puck is *NOT* the culture. The culture is the ice and the boards - it is important to understand how each will interact with the puck, but if you focus on them, you will not get to where the puck will be.

I think the puck is actually wrapped up in the question, “What is God doing now?” So I really like when you say:

So a proactive tactical response to the demise of Christendom, by which I mean one that aims at where the puck is going to be rather than where it is, invites us into a delicate dance of discernment: Among those things that we are in the habit of doing and saying (and singing), which are part of our Christian (counter-)culture—the lore and technical vocabulary of our community into which we must form and initiate people—and which ones represent truly excess baggage (what Mead in his essay calls “crap”)?

Discernment is the key. God will be seeking to reach the culture wherever it goes. It is the intersection of the active, living God with the fluid culture that is “the puck.” So both the things we love (like choral music) and new forms designed to be more compatible with the culture (like contemporary worship songs) can be the puck, but they can also be distractions to where God is actually going.

In the DCNY, the diocese took control of seven parish buildings (four church buildings and three rectories), they’ve sold three church buildings and two rectories and to my knowledge have the other two for sale.  The only “positive” is that they have accumulated some cash.  Given the poor income from the remaining DCNY parishes the outlook is not good.  Since 2003 the DCNY has lost tens of thousands of dollars in assessments, they’ve looked bad in suing congregations, and there are few really positive stories out of any of this.  pecusa’s future looks bleak, not only in the DCNY, but in the many dioceses that TitusOneNine highlights regularly.  The CP and liberals can play power games, the ACNA will instead serve Christ and His gospel.  Michael, you can have the empty churches and dwindling congregations.

btw, I would guess that the DCNY has spent more in legal fees since 2003 than they collected from the sale of church buildings.  Brilliant action not only in the DCNY, but all over pecusa.

I add my thanks to the Ians.

We need such inspiration today.  Lord, I’m willing to play my small part.

Lambeth DD’s are very much alive. A former bishop with little or no parish experience who became a leading figure in another field had to resign, eventually over charges that he had dealt inadequately with issues of sexual abuse whilst a bishop. He received a Lambeth DD and still uses the label “Dr.” All Australian bishops still collect an internally awarded ThD or similar so that they can wear that red whatnot.

In discussing clerical performance, be it parochial or episcopal, it is perhaps important to recall the Article of Religion and the point about those who minister unworthily. The validity of sacraments (not much preaching back then) was not affected. I worked for some years as a lay pastor with a seriously flawed clergyman. I never had cause to doubt his inner sincerity or love of Christ, as much as I was saddened by the difficulties he created for himself. He was one of those who landed on DDay, saw the bodies piled high, and committed himself to Christ as a result. Life pressed in down the years and his difficulties grew. Rather than condemn such men it is often better to find ways to lessen their burdens and try to spread responsibilities to limit, if not entirely contain the problems. Obviously there should be mechanisms to encourage sick people to resign or retire but the processes of achieving that are not always straight-forward or even honest.

As I conclude, I am again minded of Jesus’ remark, “Let him that is without sin…”

Daniel, one does not want to speak too ill of the non-present, but that anecdote smells of sermon legend, right down to its FOAF-ish origins. One should be suspicious of stories which so neatly ratify one’s own prejudices.

Charles,

Take Dr. Mudge’s story as you wish. He was a distinguished thelogian and a Presbyterian minister. I doubt neither his truthfulness nor my memory. If you are not familiar with Dr. Mudge,you can read Obituary Notice for Lewis S.Mudge. I can only dream of doing as much good as he did.

Daniel

Daniel, one does not want to speak too ill of the non-present, but that anecdote smells of sermon legend, right down to its FOAF-ish origins. One should be suspicious of stories which so neatly ratify one’s own prejudices.

And then God acted in the lives of men and women who differed in their approaches to the Gospel and the nature of the Church, but who fell in love with Jesus and injected that love into the forms and structures of the Episcopal Church.

“...in love with Jesus”
As the words of the song go, “All other ground is sinking sand.”

Thanks Kevin

A joy to see testimony in writing and conviction that follows.  I was told over forty years ago that my ardor and zeal would depart from me and that I might again be a “respectable” churchman.  By the grace of God may this never be so!
Blessings from Peru.  Ian

James,

  I am glad to see we can play well together!  General Convention’s “blinkers” if there are such is connected to incumbency. The more times you serve the better assignments you get.  Bishops have instant incumbency cause they just get to go.  But the clergy and laity have to make the case for themselves every three years, and sometimes that case includes choice committee work.  I personally am not sure that being on a committee is the bestest thing to do, but I did enjoy working on one.  I personally would prefer a situation in which the chairs were people with experience, then everyone else could bid for the committees they wished to be on and those committees would be filled by “lot”. 

  I have had long discussion on the HoBD list challenging the notion that TEC’s liberality has something to do with is loss of numbers.  There is some recent poll that liberal churches do not hold members, but it is not because they are liberal, but because they are not angst ridden about numbers and membership.  The kind of people we are most ready to hang out with are not particularly joiners of institutions.  But that debate will go on and on.

  Time will tell.

One of my dearest friends in the ordained ministry in Australia had a very similar journey. Thank you for having the courage to speak of your experience. Trying to define conversion, especially if we bury ourselves in polemical language, can be difficult. John Wesley’s remark about feeling his heart strangely warmed is something many of us can identify with but I am sure other Christians would affirm a heart-warming experience without necessarily identifying it as a conversion experience. I am not sure, actually, exactly what Wesley meant, beyond obviously gaining a sense of the immediacy of Christ in his personal experience that had been lacking before.

One of the things that I find interesting about our view of the authority of Bishops is that all of us, to some extent, like Bishops to exercise authority when it is in support of our position. When we are - as clergy and lay people - under the authority of a Bishop with whom we disagree, we are tempted to look for one more to our liking. Some of us do that by thinking of a Bishop who isn’t our Bishop as being our real Bishop, the one whose authority we would gladly accept. Others of us go the whole way and move so that he can be our Bishop. I don’t think this is altogther a bad thing. I think we often can grow and minister more effectively when we’re not always at loggerheads with the Bishop. But there is a danger that we will miss the growth that comes from disagreement - either as our own convictions become stronger or as we see that the Bishop with whom we disagreed did at times have an understanding of the Gospel that we had missed. There is also the danger of believing, because most of those around us agree with us, that there are no other legitimate understandings of the faith. We can find ourselves living in a theological ghetto.

I was very critical of then Bp Duncan when he restored a priest who had been deposed for repeatedly refusing to allow his Bishop make a visitation to his parish. The priest’s argument was that he didn’t want to expose his parishioners to the Bishop’s heretical preaching. It was my view that if he were an effective preacher and teacher his parishioners could withstand heresy every few years - we get enough of it from religious broadcasting.

John Stott…

The issue with the implementation and enforcement of the Covenant has to do with “where the buck stops” on issues of faith, doctrine and discipline.

James,

I don’t disagree that “where the buck stops” is important. While I would disagree with excluding lay people and priests from a role in dealing with possible violations of the Covenant, that was not my point in my earlier post - it was that I didn’t agree with Noll’s proposal to give the Primates sole responsibility for handling proposed amendments. I don’t see the wisdom of that, especially since in mant member Churches those amendments would be acted on by synods with lay and clerical and epissopal members.

Daniel

Michael Russell - 01 March 2010 07:08 PM

Rome of course thinks nothing we do is real

As others have pointed out, Michael’s isn’t enirely accurrate. What is true, as far I understand Roman Catholic sacramental theology, is that the only sacraments celebrated in TEC that the Roman Catholioc Church recognizes as valid are the two which don’t absolute require a priest: baptism and matrimony. Baptism is vaid if the formula is correct, water is used, and the intention is right. Even baptisms performed by people who aren’t Christians would be seen as valid. (The reason why Mormon baptisms, e.g., aren’t considered valid is that the understanding of the Trinity is heretical and the intention, therefore, incorrect.) The minsiters of matrimony are, in both Anglican and Roman Catholic sacrmental theology, the couple. Given the Roman Catholic requirement that both bride and groom be baptized, there might be some question about the validity of Episcopal marriages where only one of the two is baptized.

Given the Roman Catholic position on the validity of Anglican orders, no other sacramental act that any of us do is real. I am not really a priest and there is no Real Presence. I understand that that is not the view of many Roman Catholics, but that is still the official position of their Church.

Michael:  Yes, I do enjoy trading barbs with you.  I will credit you for not whining (nor even whinging, whatever that might be ) when I respond colorfully to your invective.  You dish it out, but you take it well.  You are correct that liberals have won the day in TEC.  They have clearly been more skilled at manipulating the political process then have conservatives.  Clearly anyone who does not realize this isn’t living in reality.  On the other hand, the more control the liberals have had over TEC, the greater has been its decline.  Thus I would suggest that with the staggering decline of TEC over the last 10 years, the liberals are also reaping the consequences of their actions. 

I would say that pointing out that General Convention is not representative of TEC laity is not whining.  I think that it is partially this disconnect that is causing the problems.  I recall in the Diocese of New Westminster, back around 2000, the conservatives challenged Michael Ingham to make diocesan synod more representative of the diocese, given that the very small liberal parishes were grossly overrepresented; or for the diocese to permit every Anglican in the diocese to have an equal say on the same-sex marriage rites question.  Ingham, of course, refused.  He won his Synod vote and claimed that “the diocese” had voted this way.  But the diocese hadn’t, because Ingham had refused to let the diocese have a say.  Rather the unrepresentative Synod voted his way.  And yes, that was clever politically (though the diocese there is now cash-strapped and closing parishes left, right and center) but pointing out the subsequent consequences isn’t whining, it is simply pointing out reality.

I see TEC like a patient that has entered hospice…

Is not TEC a kind of “Republic” as opposed to a Democracy?

As to bishops, I view them as a key piece of what makes Anglicans “catholic.” Interesting to note that in the ancient Church, the laity participated in the selection of a bishop, and it seems to be an unfortunate consequence of Constantinism (sp?) that the power to select bishops passed out of the hands of the laity.

But TEC has strayed in a different direction - a Western, individualistic, direction (which ironically also conflicts with the anti-clericalism that seems endemic to TEC).

James, as Daniel has noted you fling invective with the best of them.  Marxist Baptist, apparatchiks… I love it actually and so am freed of your complaint about invective.

GC is and always has been one State (now Diocese) one vote.  It is more like the Senate than the Houses of Representatives.  We have never pretended to be otherwise and indeed the one Diocese one vote was the only way small tates like CT would even sign on in the face of big “ASA” states like VA.  The change in tenor of the GC has taken 50 years to accomplish, so it is hardly the work of a secret cabal, nor is it impulsive.  The considered choice of people over decades of time was simply NOT for conservatives.  Deal with it, seriously.  Conservatives have had every chance to make their case and have failed over and over again.  You can foist that off on machinations, which is fine with me because then you will never improve your message or its manner of delivery and thus continue to lose the discursive battle for votes.

Y’all—and let me say here that I use y’all as a catch all for the detractors of TEC— lose because you employ demands and ultimatums and threats having failed to persuade.  And the present discussion about the next steps for the covenant is another fine example of how conservatives screw up:  when they don’t get what they want as they wanted it they whinge and seek to change the rules.  In the joust over the final version of the AC y’all were knocked off your horse despite having had a stacked committee that wrote the dang thing.  So now the 4 IU’s the Covenant are all to be replaced by your latest escapade, Primatial Autocracy.  Good luck…

Daniel:  Thanks for your note.  Yes, I can be snarky too.  But debate and argumentation help challenge what we think and believe, and I appreciate your input even when I vigorously disagree with you.  For what it’s worth, my position is that when it comes to faith, doctrine and discipline, I think it good to include all levels of the church in discussions.  However, the buck needs to stop with those individuals which we believe (as a matter of ecclesiology) have been called by God to be the guardians of faith, doctrine and discipline.  It is like an employment situation.  If I am the supervisor, my preferred method is to genuinely include my direct reports in developing policies.  However, in the end, it must remain my call as to whether a policy fits in with the institutional goals or not.

The issue with the implementation and enforcement of the Covenant has to do with “where the buck stops” on issues of faith, doctrine and discipline.  That is part of the very nature of what the Covenant is meant to address - when does an action violate the essential faith, doctrine or discipline of the Communion?  As such, I think that it is quite properly the role of the lead bishops (i.e. primates) of the Communion to coordinate the enforcement of the Covenant.  I would also argue strongly that there should be an appeal from any primatial decision to the Lambeth gathering of all bishops.

To advocate this is not to suggest that there is no role for the ACC or a “standing committee”, but rather to suggest that this role is not appropriate for it.

Regarding, Dr. Noll and the ACC delegates, I don’t know.  My impression is that he is not so much critical of the representatives themselves so…

It seems that I have not only been a bit snarky but also unclear about my position, although I have to say that I think I have been misinterpreted.

I have not argued that Bishops should not exercise their role as defenders of the faith. I did disagree with Dr. Noll’s suggestion that the Primates replace the Standing Committee as the body charged with reponsibility for handling proposed amendments to the covenant. Had I left it at that and not spoken of my discomfort with the idea that Lambeth resolutions expressed the mind of Communion, I might have not gotten into an argument with James.

In raising the question of the revision of the BCP, I was not suggesting that the House of Bishops not have a role in that process, but recognizing that on an important expression of our faith both Houses have had a role and that either House can refuse to accept the judgment of the other House. I see this as an indication that Bishops are not solely responsible for the defense of the faith. If the BCP is, as I believe it is, a statement of the Church’s theology, of what we believe, of doctrine, then we have an established pattern of shared authority in mstters of doctrine. To run the risk of predicting the future, I am lead to belive that the filioque - the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son - will be deleted from the Nicene Creed when the BCP is revised. That is a clear statement of doctrine and the change cannot be made by either House alone. While I am not all that familiar with the BCP process in Canada, I would be surprised if the Bishops alone made the decision to eliminate the filioque…

if we don’t want to lay people and “lesser” clergy to have any role in how the Episcopal Church defines its profession of faith

But that is not what is being argued Daniel.  Rather, by all means include laity, clergy and bishops all in coming up with a profession of faith.  An example - let’s say that this body includes the following in its profession of faith:

“We reject the idea that Jesus Christ died on the cross.”

At that point, in a proper episcopal (small “e”) polity, the responsibility would fall on the bishops to reject this false teaching, even if the majority of the lesser clergy and laity still supported it.

If you suggest that the bishops defense of the faith should be able to be “outvoted” by the lesser clergy and lay persons, then you are, by DEFINITION, advocating for a “presbyterian” form of governance (and yes, I stand corrected on the “baptist” epithet, but it is such a fun word to use ).  The “marxist” moniker, of course, refers more to HOW the supreme lay/clergy/bishop council/committee/general convention is elected or appointed, not to the actual function of the body itself.

Another thought about our polity: if we don’t want to lay people and “lesser” clergy to have any role in how the Episcopal Church defines its profession of faith, then let’s put the revision of the BCP in the hands of Bishops alone. It was decided 200 years ago that in the polity of TEC our synods would include both lay people and priests - and not just Bishops. That is hardly “Marxist Baptist” polity!

Daniel:

Let’s be clear about something.  You initially grossly misrepresented Stephen Noll’s argument when you wrote

I find the disdain with which he views those who were elected to represent their Churches not at all surprising, but more than enough reason for me to view his entire proposal with the greatest scepticism. Perhaps - and here I know I am being a tad snarky - Noll’s next essay can be on The Divine of Kings.

And so I find it disturbing to see you get your hackles up when I respond to you.  You may choose to engage with me or not, but you should at least fairly engage an argument when you read it, instead of misrepresent it.  Stephen Noll was NOT arguing against lay involvement in church governance.  He WAS arguing that bishops should be the guardians of the apostolic faith and order.  To suggest that Dr. Noll’s argument is equivalent to the “divine right of kings” is simply misrepresenting what he said.  Dr. Noll is arguing that while there is a place for lay and clergy to assist in church governance, it is the bishops who are properly given the task of guarding doctrine.

I did not, in fact use “politician” as an insult - my BA was in political science, and I remain a keen student and observer of the political process in all forms.  Rather I was using “politician” in the pure sense of the word.  Remember, Daniel, that it was YOU who challenged Dr. Noll’s argument that bishops should be where the buck stops on guarding the apostolic faith and order.  As I see it, we are discussing two possible options here: 1) bishops guard the faith and order; OR 2) lay and/or clerical politicians guard the faith and order.  I presented arguments which…

I actually do regard being a rector/vicar as working for the bishop and sharing his ministry locally.  Besides he was my boss in the roles I had in that diocese.  To me “working for means accountable.  When the Bishop shows up he tells us what to do etc,.  Even though called by a search team it was the Bishop who instituted us. If you were ever a vicar then the relationship was even more direct than as a rector. Such is my view of episcopacy!  We clearly differ!

Dear Dan,
When we both worked for +Alex Stewart in W. Mass do you not remember that he was a great pains continually to point out that we were Episcopal, therefore ruled and governed by bishops?

Ian,

That is not how I remember it. First, I never worked for Bp Stewart and I suspect he never would have used that way of describing my service in four conrgegations in WMass. Secon, Bp Stewart once joked about the limits of his authority, saying that if he could he would appoint me as rector in Southbridge and Eakins as rector is South Hadley - or vice versa. Finally, I think Bp Stewart would agree with the principle of episcopally led and synodically governed.

Daniel

Dear Dan,
When we both worked for +Alex Stewart in W. Mass do you not remember that he was a great pains continually to point out that we were Episcopal, therefore ruled and governed by bishops?

Ian,

That is not how I remember it. First, I never worked for Bp Stewart and I suspect he never would have used that way of describing my service in four conrgegations in WMass. Secon, Bp Stewart once joked about the limits of his authority, saying that if he could he would appoint me as rector in Southbridge and Eakins as rector is South Hadley - or vice versa. Finally, I think Bp Stewart would agree with the principle of episcopally led and synodically governed.

Daniel

Daniel:  I know that you think that TEC is “democratic” but I find that a ludicrous statement.  I find myself no more represented by TEC’s political lay apparatchiks on the ACC then I do by bishops.  There are so many holes in TEC being anything near a representative democracy that it is a joke to even claim that it is.

First, typically diocesan representation is not based on ASA.  Second, the timing of diocesan conventions typically mitigate against younger or fully employed people from attending, thus skewing the delegate demographics to being more “activist” minded.  So, the overall picture of diocesan votes already is not representative of lay persons.

Third, General Convention is not representative of TEC’s actual attendees, but rather based arbitrarily on diocesan numbers.  Fourth, General Convention’s timing makes next to impossible for employed persons to attend, thus skewing even more the delegate demographics to being of the retired or more activist minded.  Fifth, with the current culture in TEC in which conservatives are subject to abject hostility (being told we are “evil”, etc.) there is even more disincentive for normal people to attend General Convention.  Sixth, at the bureaucratic level of General Convention there is very obviously an “insiders” group that determines who will be the party slate for non-bishop positions.

All in all, I think that the suggestion that a lay or lower clergy political apparatchik is capable of representing me as an individual lay Episcopalian quite ridiculous.

And that’s not even engaging in Dr. Noll’s argument as regards the role of bishops.  When it comes to determining apostolic faith and discipline, there is a preeminent role for the successors to the apostles.  If you think faith and doctrine should be decided by lay politicians, then it would seem to me that you…

Daniel: Though I spent most of the last post suggesting that the notion that lay or clerical representation on the ACC means that the laity are somehow better represented is nonsensical, my primary reason for disagreeing with you is because, as Dr. Noll has argued, it is the bishops who are tasked under an episcopal polity with guarding and defending the apostolic faith and order.  I am becoming increasingly of the view that there is a very basic divide in ecclesiology between TEC liberals and the rest of the Communion, with Anglicans upholding the traditional catholic view on the role of bishops, while TEC liberals arguing that bishops are now mere servants of the Supreme Soviet…er, General Convention, whose only purpose is to enforce that body’s decisions.

Daniel:  I know that you think that TEC is “democratic” but I find that a ludicrous statement.  I find myself no more represented by TEC’s political lay apparatchiks on the ACC then I do by bishops.  There are so many holes in TEC being anything near a representative democracy that it is a joke to even claim that it is.

First, typically diocesan representation is not based on ASA.  Second, the timing of diocesan conventions typically mitigate against younger or fully employed people from attending, thus skewing the delegate demographics to being more “activist” minded.  So, the overall picture of diocesan votes already is not representative of lay persons.

Third, General Convention is not representative of TEC’s actual attendees, but rather based arbitrarily on diocesan numbers.  Fourth, General Convention’s timing makes next to impossible for employed persons to attend, thus skewing even more the delegate demographics to being of the retired or more activist minded.  Fifth, with the current culture in TEC in which conservatives are subject to abject hostility (being told we are “evil”, etc.) there is even more disincentive for normal people to attend General Convention.  Sixth, at the bureaucratic level of General Convention there is very obviously an “insiders” group that determines who will be the party slate for non-bishop positions.

All in all, I think that the suggestion that a lay or lower clergy political apparatchik is capable of representing me as an individual lay Episcopalian quite ridiculous.

And that’s not even engaging in Dr. Noll’s argument as regards the role of bishops.  When it comes to determining apostolic faith and discipline, there is a preeminent role for the successors to the apostles.  If you think faith and doctrine should be decided by lay politicians, then it would seem to me that you would be better…

It seems to me that at least one of the conflicts over the Covenant centers on how much authority/power will be granted to lay people and clergy in the “lower orders.” Noll’s proposal would give the Primates a much greater control over the amending process than in the present Covenant draft. While I am open to arguments in favor of this, my initial reaction is negative. As I have asserted - perhaps ad nauseem - the idea that the Lambeth resolutions are the mind of the Communion should not go unchallenged. When Arbp Williams recently described a statement of the Primates as the position of the Communion’s Bishops, I could only imagine Bishops throughout the Communion wondering when they had decided that the Primates spoke for them. Finally, Noll seems to be deeply suspicious of the polical process in the Communion and its member Churches.

While dooming the idea of a bicameral Communion Council, the ACC politicians proposed amending the Constitution to add five members of the Primates Standing Committee to the ACC plenary and Standing Committee (Resolution 4b and 4d).

I find the disdain with which he views those who were elected to represent their Churches not at all surprising, but more than enough reason for me to view his entire proposal with the greatest scepticism. Perhaps - and here I know I am being a tad snarky - Noll’s next essay can be on The Divine of Kings.

Dear Dan,
When we both worked for +Alex Stewart in W. Mass do you not remember that he was a great pains continually to point out that we were Episcopal, therefore ruled and governed by bishops?  Lay and regular clergy participation was actively
encouraged etc.  However it was the bishops who gave oversight.  In…

It seems to me that at least one of the conflicts over the Covenant centers on how much authority/power will be granted to lay people and clergy in the “lower orders.” Noll’s proposal would give the Primates a much greater control over the amending process than in the present Covenant draft. While I am open to arguments in favor of this, my initial reaction is negative. As I have asserted - perhaps ad nauseem - the idea that the Lambeth resolutions are the mind of the Communion should not go unchallendged. When Arbp Williams recently described a statement of the Primates as the position of the Communion’s Bishops, I could only imagine Bishops throughout the Communion wondering when they had decided that the Primates spoke for them. Finally, Noll seems to be deeply suspicious of the polical process in the Communion and its member Churches.

While dooming the idea of a bicameral Communion Council, the ACC politicians proposed amending the Constitution to add five members of the Primates Standing Committee to the ACC plenary and Standing Committee (Resolution 4b and 4d).

I find the disdain with which he views those who were elected to represent their Churches not at all surprising, but more than enough reason for me to view his entire proposal with the greatest scepticism. Perhaps - and here I know I am being a tad snarky - Noll’s next essay can be on The Divine Right of Kings.

Nowhere did I say the sacraments they preside over are not valid.  Of course both Rome and many within the WWAC have made exactly that determination about sacraments presided over by women and glbt clergy.

Michael,

What is your evidence for “Rome” saying that sacraments presided over by gay clergy are invalid? There have been a few suggestions by some conservative Catholics that the ordination of gays is invalid. This is an extremely troubling, thoroughly heretical argument, but it is certainly not official teaching within the Roman Communion. (Note: this is different from the current official policy in the Roman Communion that men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” ought not to be ordained. This policy, however dubious, is in no way a doctrinal stance and says nothing about the validity of the ordination of such people.)

Rome of course thinks nothing we do is real.

This simply isn’t true.

  But the culture of Rome has been to deny responsibility, attack the victim, shuffle offenders and obstruct civil and criminal actions.  The cost to Rome has been hundreds of millions of dollars and may lead to the collapse of the church in Ireland.  Why would sexual purity watchdogs ally with such a culture?  It boggles the mind frankly.

Well, I don’t consider myself a “sexual purity watchdog,” so I will let the watchdogs speak for themselves! But I am an Anglican who frequently feels drawn to Rome, and one of the reasons is that Rome, unlike the Episcopal Church, seems capable of defending Christian teachings that are out of touch with the dominant views among the contemporary liberal intelligentsia of the West. Even the “obstruction” of the civil authorities that you rightly find troubling is part of a longstanding claim by the Catholic Church…

With my tongue in my cheek, let me say that there was no one from Truro Church hanging around Ridley Hall when the Covenant group were here working on the Ridley Cambridge draft last year. On a more serious note, the make up the Covenant Design Group was significantly diverse, represented a breadth of the Communion, and wrestled to come up with the draft that they did. It has been a strategy in recent years to imply something long enough, despite all evidence to the contrary, in the hope that in due course people will start to believe the assertion is true.

Michael - I will ignore your invective, and respond to some of the actual points you have raised in your last post.

First, I think that you make the mistake of collapsing all those you disagree with into one massive uniform block, when this simply isn’t so.  I realize that this is common for extremists to do, but I would ask you to consider that the world is actually much more complex then that.  Amongst conservatives, there have been (1) those who think that GAFCON should simply walk away from Canterbury and form an alternate Communion; (2) those who have long argued against the Covenant as being premature until the problems with TEC have been solved; (3) those who believe that the various Covenant drafts have all been deeply flawed and should be rejected; (4) those who are generally in agreement with the Covenant but have serious concerns about the method of its implementation; (5) those who are very skeptical of the Covenant, but think it is the best way to have TEC voluntarily depart the Communion; and (6) those who have complete faith in the Covenant and the implementation process.  What you are seeing here is that those in groups 4 and 5 are rethinking their positions in light of recent events.

Second, if you would actually read and absorb the arguments of those with whom you disagree, you would realize that Dr. Noll has set forth some serious ecclesiastical arguments as to why it should be bishops-in-council that maintain the apostolic faith and discipline in the Anglican Communion instead of a politicized and Western liberal dominated bureaucracy.

Third, I still think that there should be a “stampede” to sign on to the Covenant, however, I would suggest that it is now time for the wider Global South primates…

What we will have a freshly charged folks, looking to grow and free of the toxic leadership of years past.

Yes, just keep believing that Michael, since we know that all of the evidence suggests that waves and waves of new people are breaking down the doors of TEC parishes everywhere - especially in those dioceses like Newark that have been rid of pesky conservatives for years.  You should really have a chat with TEC’s statistics keepers though, because they seem to be missing this massive new growth.  And perhaps you might also give a call up to the Bishop of the Diocese of British Columbia and tell him that he has all the wrong statistics and that he no churches need to be closed down and sold due to all of these new members.  Perhaps you could also call my own diocesan HQ and let them know that all of their talk about financial crisis due to alarming drops in membership is just silly talk and the best course of action is to insert their heads deep into the sand.  Heh, it worked for Baghdad Bob right????  Didn’t it?

Michael:  The property decisions will have much fewer positive consequences then you suppose and far more negative ones (from a TEC perspective).  I have read now numerous commentaries from TEC-friendly sources detailing the costliness of maintaining empty buildings.  On the flip side, loss of properties does not seem to have dampened ACNA growth at all.  I think that the consequence of the PB’s litigation campaign will be: 1) increased costs to an already financially troubled TEC (to maintain empty buildings and prop up fake congregations in them); 2) an increasing reticence by conservative members of TEC to give to their parish or diocese (I don’t know any conservative in their right mind who would give a dime to any TEC sub-unit); and 3) virtually no new TEC church plants (none would want to start under such circumstances).  In other words, in the long run, the PB’s litigation “victories” will actually have serious negative long-term consequences for TEC, but will not likely have any long-term negative consequences on the ACNA.

Other then that, I do agree that the sorting in the WWAC will continue, and will likely continue for some time.  My predictions are that either (1) the Global South primates will band togehter in bold and coordinated action, thus forcing Rowan Williams’ hand leading to TEC’s walking away from the Communion; or (2) the Communion will de facto fall apart, staying together in name only (but without any interchangeability of orders, no working Instruments of Unity, etc.) until a new Archbishop of Canterbury emerges who will begin to rebuild it back into a Communion.

In a Diocese that is in fact recovering properties we are actively planning futures for them as parishes or mission centers.  In one case the rightful congregation moved back on, though the dissidents…

Duuuuudes, you need to buy a clue!  My position is that no one has the authority to foist a “finished document” on the Communion. The “But Gosh” in the posting generating this part of the discussion is called sarcasm. 

Aren’t you glad everyone ignored the ACI’s stampede to sign on?  The poor Ridley draft was being riddled with complaints about the efficacy of the 4 IU and by those who did not like the final centering of authority in the ACC even before the photopying was cooled. 

I think it is a hoot that those who were demanding instant implementation have now decided that the ++ABC hasn’t the chops to lead and that the Joint Steering Committee or Star Chamber of the Anglican Communion (more sarcasm here too) is too malleable by TEC or the other forces of darkness in the Communion.

And so of course you settled on the Primates.  This has been the hoped for outcome all along.  In fact my earliest predictions when there were Instruments of Unity before Instruments of Communion was exactly that the Primates were the sharks who would eat the other three IU.

Ian, whose positions I generally deplore, somehow thinks that the GafCon folks have enough support to pull off this coup.  They do not, heck they couldn’t even strongarm the English Evangelicals into signing the Jerusalem Declaration.  But I love having you all work on a losing option, so keep up the pressure there.

Once again you cannot have a process with four heads and four paths of adjudication.  There can be only one head with subsidiary routes to it, for sure.

It is also ludicrous to argue that TEC not even be allowed to sign, the Covenant, whatever final form it takes.  Who has the authority to…

Daniel:

Part of our disagreement is semantic.  Can a “parish” leave or not?  Depends how you define “parish”.  If you define it as an administrative sub-unit of the diocese, then no, it can’t.  If you define it as a local community of Christians banded together in common purpose, then yes, it can.  So the answer is both yes and no.

Second, there are instances where a congregation is legitimately split on leaving and a core of TEC adherents remain.  That remnant may not be financially viable.  I would not term such a group as “fake”.  When I refer to a “fake” congregation, I mean it is a congregation which was assembled with a PR motive in mind.  As regards the situation I refer to, if there were no PR motive at play, I have no doubt at all in my mind that there would be no congregation there.  And I also have no doubt at all that in 1-2 years, when the news cycles have died down, this congregation will be quietly disbanded and the “rent-a-congregation” folks will return to their real parishes again.

In the end, Daniel, the above discussion doesn’t matter to the original point I made in the earlier post.  However you want to term the small, non-viable congregations inhabiting the old buildings on the diocesan dole, the reality is that these arrangements are very costly to the TEC diocese.

Coming late to this thread, I would hope that the covenant text could be changed as the need arises. Like any legal document, it may need to be amended, perhaps fairly soon. I think it is well within the realm of possibility that a member Church would adopt the covenant and immediately propose a change. As the proposed change was being considered, that Church would be bound by the covenant in its unamended form. If the proposed change were to be a matter of great importance to that Church, its rejection might result in the CXhurch withdrawing from the covenant, but I think that would be a reasonable course of action.

Daniel:  When I speak of “fake congregations” I speak of a situation (which actually exists in my diocese) in which an congregation voted to leave TEC by an overwhelming margin.  The diocese, however, sought to maintain the fiction that the “parish” did not, in fact leave.  There was a lawsuit to regain the buildings, which the diocese won.  At the grand celebration of getting back the building, there were, according to diocesan reports, a total of 100 persons present, which included, again according to diocesan reports, a very large number of TEC clergy and many “supporters” drawn from other TEC congregations.  Over the last two years, I had occasion to see the leadership of the TEC parish and noted that the individuals in leadership positions had very recently (i.e. prior to the Anglican congregation leaving) held similar leadership positions in a nearby very liberal TEC parish.  According to diocesan information, this new TEC parish has no recorded pledges.

Now Daniel, I am not stupid.  And the evidence points one way here.  The diocese and local TEC liberals have created a “fake” congregation for PR purposes.  It is in no way representative of the original congregation that left.  Had the original congregation never existed, this new “fake” congregation would never have existed.  It is not financially viable.  It is on financial life support from the (deeply financially troubled) diocese.  And this is, apparently, not uncommon in similar circumstances.  I refer to such congregations as “fake” because they were not created for the normal reasons a diocese plants new congregations - they were created specifically for a PR purpose, at significant financial cost to the diocese.

James:

Two points of disagreement.

First, it is my view that people, even entire congrgeations, can leave, but the incorporated parish can’t.…

Daniel:  When I speak of “fake congregations” I speak of a situation (which actually exists in my diocese) in which an congregation voted to leave TEC by an overwhelming margin.  The diocese, however, sought to maintain the fiction that the “parish” did not, in fact leave.  There was a lawsuit to regain the buildings, which the diocese won.  At the grand celebration of getting back the building, there were, according to diocesan reports, a total of 100 persons present, which included, again according to diocesan reports, a very large number of TEC clergy and many “supporters” drawn from other TEC congregations.  Over the last two years, I had occasion to see the leadership of the TEC parish and noted that the individuals in leadership positions had very recently (i.e. prior to the Anglican congregation leaving) held similar leadership positions in a nearby very liberal TEC parish.  According to diocesan information, this new TEC parish has no recorded pledges.

Now Daniel, I am not stupid.  And the evidence points one way here.  The diocese and local TEC liberals have created a “fake” congregation for PR purposes.  It is in no way representative of the original congregation that left.  Had the original congregation never existed, this new “fake” congregation would never have existed.  It is not financially viable.  It is on financial life support from the (deeply financially troubled) diocese.  And this is, apparently, not uncommon in similar circumstances.  I refer to such congregations as “fake” because they were not created for the normal reasons a diocese plants new congregations - they were created specifically for a PR purpose, at significant financial cost to the diocese.

James - you make a good point.  I did not read Michael thusly and so responded as I did.  I am not sure still that the text is changeable as it stands, however the critical mass of the Global South may indeed make it possible.  In this post Anis resignation and pre Glasspool consecration time all looks very different to the way it looked six months ago.  Certainly I welcomed the completed text when announced and thought that the Glasspool election would bring all into the open.  Alas there was more hidden and the Anis resignation has for me changed the playing field.  I now hope for and expect a stronger GS that will welcome into its fold those who had been trying to work with Williams, and who now seem to admit that it was a failed strategy.

We shall see how things turn out over the next few months

Blessings - Ian

Ian: I agree that Michael has a point - but he has to decide which point it is.  A solid case can be made that the only Covenant that should be considered is the one that JSC presented.  An equally solid case can be made that the Dr. Noll is right and that there is no legal requirement that only that Covenant may be considered.  My problem with Michael is that when he thought that it would be the liberals who wanted to amend the Covenant, he took one position, but when he learned that it might be the conservatives who wanted to amend, he took on a mocking and derisive tone.

Practically, it makes no sense for each Province now to rewrite the Covenant to its own liking.  But I don’t think that that is what Dr. Noll is suggesting.  Rather, he is arguing that the whole process by which the Covenant has been hijacked over the last year by Rowan Williams and his political apparatchiks is not legitimate, and so should not be simply accepted.  But he is not then calling for anarchy of uncoordinated reaction, but rather issuing a call to the Global South primates (who happen to be meeting together in a couple of months time) to come to a common decision to make some minor, but very important, amendments to the Covenant, and then to present THAT Covenant to the rest of the Communion for adoption.  The question would become at what point a critical mass of Provinces will have been reached that would have accepted the amended Covenant to make it the new defacto Covenant on the table.

Back to Michael’s point, I think that it is the right of the Provinces to make changes at this point to the Covenant and advocate for…

A couple of comments:

The moral equivalence argument has always been weak, IMV. Just because there is no moral equivalence between murder and stealing does not mean that stealing is OK. If the request for moratoria has any weight, then it should have weight for all of them. One can, in the tradition of “civil disobedience,” decide to ignore a moratorium request, but then one should expect to suffer the consequences, such as they are. Up until the last General Convention, TEC maintained the two moratoria that were requested of TEC. The moratoria on the blessing of same-sex unions is no longer being complied with and the moratoria on consecrating bishops who are in same-sex unions will no longer be complied with if Canon Glasspool receives the required number of consents.

James speaks of “fake congregations” is his latest post. Having served very small congregations in two dioceses, I find the idea that any congregation is fake to be insulting. It is not quite as insulting as a bovine reference to the PB that I discovered on a blog, but it is hardly an example of the love that binds all of us in spite of our differences. The congregation as the Anglican Chapel in our village is far smaller than our Episcopal congregation, but I would never demean those sisters and brothers by calling it a fake congrgeation. Wherever two of three….

James - to be fair to Michael - with whom I have nearly constant disagreement and whose postings I generally deplore - He has a point here.  I do not think that he is saying that one group can alter and another not.  He is simply reminding us that either the text is still modifiable, which he maintained, or it is not, as some of us have maintained.  In other words we cannot suddenly change sides as to whether or not the text as presented is alterable in the adoption process.  I still do not believe that it is open to alteration at this point.

Having said that, I agree that Stephen Noll has some trenchant points about weaknesses in the text as presented to the AC for adoption by its Provinces.  I also need to admit that I am one of those whose belief in bishops is limited.  I have written elsewhere on this blog that I would prefer no bishops to bad bishops.  I stand by that.  I agree with Stephen that here we are substituting entities to make oversight decisions that have traditionally been made by bishops and primates.  I also agree that I have even less trust of these entities than I do for some of the pointy hatted folk whose errant behavior we in the US have had to suffer under.  The so called Joint Standing Committee of the AC is a crock and the ACC was shown to be a complete sham and worthless in Jamaica last year.  Meanwhile Rowan Williams has gutted the Primates as a group and recast Lambeth into a tea party where those attending can posture and pose, be talking heads, anyway they like so long as Rowan is in charge and have the final say (which few understand anyway).

Hmmmm….Michael….a poster calling himself “Michael Russell” had this to say on another thread:

The Provinces have every right to propose further changes to the text. However much work went into this “final” text, there is too much at stake for Provinces not to express or not express changes they would like to see.  It will be interesting to see how many Provinces actually adopt it without revision.

Did someone use your name falsely?  Or am I right to understand that you are suggesting that if liberals propose changes to the Covenant text, it is a demonstration of great thoughtfulness and wisdom, but when conservatives do the same it is cause for derision and mockery???

Michael:  The property decisions will have much fewer positive consequences then you suppose and far more negative ones (from a TEC perspective).  I have read now numerous commentaries from TEC-friendly sources detailing the costliness of maintaining empty buildings.  On the flip side, loss of properties does not seem to have dampened ACNA growth at all.  I think that the consequence of the PB’s litigation campaign will be: 1) increased costs to an already financially troubled TEC (to maintain empty buildings and prop up fake congregations in them); 2) an increasing reticence by conservative members of TEC to give to their parish or diocese (I don’t know any conservative in their right mind who would give a dime to any TEC sub-unit); and 3) virtually no new TEC church plants (none would want to start under such circumstances).  In other words, in the long run, the PB’s litigation “victories” will actually have serious negative long-term consequences for TEC, but will not likely have any long-term negative consequences on the ACNA.

Other then that, I do agree that the sorting in the WWAC will continue, and will likely continue for some time.  My predictions are that either (1) the Global South primates will band togehter in bold and coordinated action, thus forcing Rowan Williams’ hand leading to TEC’s walking away from the Communion; or (2) the Communion will de facto fall apart, staying together in name only (but without any interchangeability of orders, no working Instruments of Unity, etc.) until a new Archbishop of Canterbury emerges who will begin to rebuild it back into a Communion.

The Covenant is dead.

Michael, you might be right.  But if you are, then so is any meaningful Anglican Communion dead (or at least in a comatose state) until there is a new Archbishop of Canterbury who is willing to cooperate with the enactment and enforcement of communion boundaries.

This is why I think that Stephen Noll’s argument is so important.  The Anglican Communion is currently hanging by a thread.  I do not think that Rowan Williams is capable or willing to do what it takes to save it.  I think that the only hope is for the Global South - with the reckless courage of the GAFCON primates tempered by the calmer wisdom of the moderate conservatives like Anis and Chew - to take some coordinated and bold action.  But that action must be coordinated and I think it must simulataneously challenge the “Lambeth bureaucracy” model being implemented by Williams yet also be faithful to the “conciliar authority by bishops” model.  In other words, just as the Diocese of South Carolina is currently saying to the PB “we respect TEC and your office, but we will not permit you to abuse your authority’, so should the Global South primates say to Rowan Williams “we respect the Anglican Communion and the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but we will not permit you to gerrymander the process and force a Covenant on us that will only serve to permanently sideline the majority of the Communion and put the Covenant’s implementation and enforcement in the hands of Western liberals.”

I think that simply accepting the current draft, with the rather discredited Joint Standing Committee having such power, will do nothing to solve the Communion’s problems.  It is my prediction that the Covenant in its current form will simply be ignored by…

Moral equivalence was and is irrelevant with respect to the moratoria all three of which applied.  Fortunately the U.S. Supreme Court has for a second time refused to hear appeals of the CA Supreme Courts ruling on property issues.  The return of nearly all the alienated properties is now just a matter of time.  And the ACNA is not an Anglican Province in any terms that the ++ABC or most of the communion’s provinces would understand it.

The sorting that is going on in the WWAC will continue in some fashion we will see how much splintering will happen.

But gosh, I thought this was the final text?!?!?!  However little he likes the SCAC formulation, it is far better than the original Ridley text which allowed some cherry picking of Instruments of Unity.  You cannot have four heads unless there are a clearly spelled out interrelation, check, balances and precedence in handling “complaints.” 

So revisions of the “final document” are now underway!  The chaos will only continue as an ineptly written text attracts more critical attention and further shredding.  The Covenant is dead.

The first women’s concern about autonomy and the place of the laity is instructive.

TEC will never agree to anything that does not grant them total autonomy, nor give to the laity equal power as clergy.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Bishops are a non-stater for both conservatives and progressives.

How much longer will this nonsensical discussion of Tiber-swimmers go on? The issue is one for a few clergy bearing in mind that since 1800 probably less than a thousand Anglican clergy have taken the plunge—and possibly fewer than that if statistical evidence could be found. As far as the laity are concerned, there has never been any obstacle to taking the journey to Rome but precious few have done so. As far as the Covenant is concerned, it will make absolutely no difference at all to the mass of Anglican laity who are unlikely to ever hear of it. Given the aging of Anglican congregations in the “West” most of today’s church attenders will probably be dead before it is realized.

What is far more important is that tens of millions of lay-people, Catholic, Anglican and everything else, have chosen to walk away from the Christian Church. They have not left because of any specific sexual, doctrinal or liturgical issues. They are not bothering. They are unable to reconcile modern theological discourse and the church itself, whether liberal or conservative, with modern values.

That is the issue that needs to be addressed and everything else is subsidiary although not unimportant. Anglicans have tried “evangelism” but for the greater part evangelicals, like others in the church, are trying to respond to modern modes of thought and behaviour with answers grounded in the values, attitudes and ideas of millennia past. This is, in no small part, tied to our intellectualisation of the Scriptures and the Gospel as theology becomes more and more institutionalised, ritualised, professionalised.

Despite the charismatic influences of recent years we have not experienced the revitalization of theology and therefore the modern church by the Holy Spirit outside of conventional frameworks that, numerically, now passed their peak…

Michael, I think to some extent we are agreeing too vigorously. Personally I see the denials as a big problem, and while they are not a determining factor for me, they play into the larger Fantasy Church complex which it seems to me that Tiber-crossers—especially clerical Tiber-crossers—indulge themselves in all too readily. Its inverse is the tendency of Catholics (and Orthodox present the same behavior) to ratify everything that happens in their church as good or at least acceptable, which leads to mordantly amusing moments when ex-Anglican clerics have as their first project the establishment of Anglican standards of liturgical behavior, as especially against the prevailing slovenliness of the American church.

If you would like me to state my point more forcefully, however, so be it. ECUSA has the same issue, just over different issues. To put something I’ve said several times into different words: I don’t think the continuity of liturgical orthodoxy is likely to survive the sexuality-driven pressure to modify the liturgy to the program of the radical feminists. Once homosexuality is out of the way as a distraction, and enough of the rigidly orthodox are driven away, the culture of the church will be further moved in the direction of being incapable of pushing back against these women and their supporters, just as it is now largely paralyzed in pushing back against homosexuality. Justice will require acceding to their demands. Oh, lots of rejoinders will be written, just as they have already been written; but they will be paid no attention by the establishment. And when the new liturgies are promulgated, it will only be a matter of time before the “old” 1979 liturgies will be proscribed.

On that basis I can see why some people convert: living with the very many problems of Catholic churches is…

The moderator tells a small lie in that he describes the panel as having a “range of perspectives” on the Covenant.

Exactly my reaction. It became hard to take the discussion seriously after that.

Mead’s point about political differences reminds me of a story that Lewis Mudge told in a sermon. A Presbyterian minister in the South became active in the civil rights movement in the 1950s much to the consternation of the leaders of his congregation. Heresy charges were made against him and he was deposed for being a unitarian. The congregation had had, Mudge pointed out, no problem with his unitarian theology during his many years there. As Mudge put it, theology is only theology, but race is race.

Rome of course thinks nothing we do is real.

Strickly speaking, that is not correct. While you must be confirmed again, an Anglican need not be baptised anew nor be remarried (if already married!).

Interesting couple of points Michael

I of course think TEC should sign it so we can begin using the juridical processes contained therein to sanction jurisdiction jumpers, churches that openly support the criminalization of homosexuality, and so forth.  It will be fun to rain down a list of quite legitimate complaints from within the text of the AC.

  Ian, we have lots of splinters in ACNA who call and have called themselves “Anglican” for decades.  There is no franchise on the name.

One of Mrs. Schori’s themes is that she and TEC have the Anglican franchise - hence the remarks about preferring to sell a church building to become a bar rather than let another “Anglican” group have it.

As to your first point - it was made very clear at Dar es Salaam that there is NO equivalence between the jurisdiction jumpers and those who are acting contrary the the mind of the Instruments re doctrine of marriage and ordination of the actively homoerotic. 

As to your second.  The criminalization of homosexuality has been around for centuries and is lessening generally, even in Africa where it is not simply a secular tradition but also hugely sanctioned where there are any significant Muslim presences.  Churches in East Africa - with which I am mostly familiar - are seeking a balance between the Muslim world and the clear abhorrence of homoerotic behavior forbidden in the Holy Scriptures and reflected in Lambeth 1.10. 

Incidentally the listening process was just that, to listen, not to be a process for assimilation of revisionist/reappraiser teaching, which is how it tends to be promoted by TEC and such.  I will listen, be compassionate and give pastoral care that includes healing and prayer for the strength to say NO.  I will not…

For people still in officially-Anglican churches, opposition to ordination of women is an enabler for this, not especially a driver; homosexuality is of course a presenting issue.

The sexual abuse scandals play a difficult role in this, and again, the situation for clergy and laity is different. I think, Michael, that you are coming close to indulging in a sort of ecclesiological Donatism, in that a church of hypocrites and abusers is still a church. Fealty to orthodoxy, it can be argued, trumps all this. I think it can also be argued that orthodoxy is not enough, and that orthopraxy of a sort is necessary; but this is an essentially Protestant judgement, after all. In this wise my own church is becoming a problem because I do not feel I can unreservedly suggest to someone, “well, why don’t you try an Episcopal parish?” without knowing something of the parish the person might visit. By the same token I do not think that Cardinal Above-The-Law taints every Catholic parish in the country or even in his own archdiocese. An emigrant Anglican parish perhaps feels a certain safety from some of these issue, though I have to say I wonder how well the Anglican subculture can be protected.

Nowhere did I say the sacraments they preside over are not valid.  Of course both Rome and many within the WWAC have made exactly that determination about sacraments presided over by women and glbt clergy.  Rome of course thinks nothing we do is real.

And there are many wonderful people in the Roman Rite church, including some bishops I am sure.  But the culture of Rome has been to deny responsibility, attack the victim, shuffle offenders and obstruct civil and criminal actions.  The cost to Rome has been hundreds of millions…

Doug and Ian

  In an anarchic setting, like that of the WWAC, people can propose whatever they want and define it however they please, but all the rest are free to simply say that this will not do.  Of course Dr. Radner and Bishop Gomez left no provision for further review, except of course in the provision that nothing in the Covenant could over ride Provincial Canons and Constitutions.  And while many might be ready to throw burning brands on TEC, the same may not be true of other provinces who chose not to sign this document.  It will be a hoot if the C of E cannot or will not sign on. 

  This will be just another source of division with the signers pretending they are the Anglican Communion, when in fact they are just signatories to a covenant that only covers signatories.  I of course think TEC should sign it so we can begin using the juridical processes contained therein to sanction jurisdiction jumpers, churches that openly support the criminalization of homosexuality, and so forth.  It will be fun to rain down a list of quite legitimate complaints from within the text of the AC.

  Ian, we have lots of splinters in ACNA who call and have called themselves “Anglican” for decades.  There is no franchise on the name.

For people still in officially-Anglican churches, opposition to ordination of women is an enabler for this, not especially a driver; homosexuality is of course a presenting issue.

The sexual abuse scandals play a difficult role in this, and again, the situation for clergy and laity is different. I think, Michael, that you are coming close to indulging in a sort of ecclesiological Donatism, in that a church of hypocrites and abusers is still a church. Fealty to orthodoxy, it can be argued, trumps all this. I think it can also be argued that orthodoxy is not enough, and that orthopraxy of a sort is necessary; but this is an essentially Protestant judgement, after all. In this wise my own church is becoming a problem because I do not feel I can unreservedly suggest to someone, “well, why don’t you try an Episcopal parish?” without knowing something of the parish the person might visit. By the same token I do not think that Cardinal Above-The-Law taints every Catholic parish in the country or even in his own archdiocese. An emigrant Anglican parish perhaps feels a certain safety from some of these issue, though I have to say I wonder how well the Anglican subculture can be protected.

I agree with Doug.

Here is what the Covenant text says:

(4.4.2) Any covenanting Church or Instrument of Communion may submit a proposal to amend the Covenant to the Instruments of Communion through the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee shall send the proposal to the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates’ Meeting, the covenanting Churches and any other body as it may consider appropriate for advice. The Standing Committee shall make a recommendation on the proposal in the light of advice offered, and submit the proposal with any revisions to the covenanting Churches. The amendment is operative when ratified by three quarters of such Churches. The Standing Committee shall adopt a procedure for promulgation of the amendment.

I do not see here a provision for provinces to amend the Covenant before they commit to it. Of course non-covenanting provinces may respond as they wish, but that does not transform the text into a draft.

Indeed there is a process for amendment of the Covenant and that is seen above as quoted by Doug.  However - this is indeed a text for acceptance and not a conversation piece.  As I read it it is only modifiable by submission from a “covenanting Church,” who will submit proposals to the SC.  This means that the Covenant needs to be accepted by a Church/Province.  Later the proposals for change go to the SC then to the ACC, Primates and the community of Covenanting Churches and so on.

Neither TEC nor any other Province/Church can make changes until they have accepted the Covenant and its settled text as we now have it.  I am sure that TEC would love to delay in any way possible.  That playing card is not available.  Besides when Ms. Glasspool gets her consents and is made a Bishop…

Here is what the Covenant text says:

(4.4.2) Any covenanting Church or Instrument of Communion may submit a proposal to amend the Covenant to the Instruments of Communion through the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee shall send the proposal to the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates’ Meeting, the covenanting Churches and any other body as it may consider appropriate for advice. The Standing Committee shall make a recommendation on the proposal in the light of advice offered, and submit the proposal with any revisions to the covenanting Churches. The amendment is operative when ratified by three quarters of such Churches. The Standing Committee shall adopt a procedure for promulgation of the amendment.

I do not see here a provision for provinces to amend the Covenant before they commit to it. Of course non-covenanting provinces may respond as they wish, but that does not transform the text into a draft.

The moderator tells a small lie in that he describes the panel as having a “range of perspectives” on the Covenant.

snip

The seminary describes the final text of the Covenant, incorrectly, as its third and final draft. The text is complete. The question is now how many provinces will sign on to the completed text.

snip

The Provinces have every right to propose further changes to the text. However much work went into this “final” text, there is too much at stake for Provinces not to express or not express changes they would like to see.  It will be interesting to see how many Provinces actually adopt it without revision.

What the future of Christianity may be it seems unlikely it will include everyone merging back into Rome.  Not everyone emerged from Rome in the first place. 

What I find most ironic is that this particular discussion comes as a result of opposition to women in Holy Orders and GLBT issues.  Those fleeing those issues seem to think Rome a worthy place to go.  But it is hardly that.  It is a church that has obfuscated the truth about its own vast enabling of pedophila and ephebophila including directives to obstruct civil authorities in their efforts to bring miscreant clergy to justice.  Even as we speak the Roman Church in Ireland is under the microscope for shuffling sexual offenders about and exporting them to the US, Africa and Latin America.  The current Pope is the author of the policy requiring obstruction of civil investigations.

So I have to wonder how people whose knickers are in such a twist about homosexuality manage to whitewash in their consciences the consistent RC condonation of predatory sexual behavior.  Rome, of course simply blames gays, which only adds to their guilt by refusing to acknowledge the real nature of pedo- and ephebophilia.

There are many other reasons NOT to reunite with Rome until such time as it is a collaborative mutually sacrificial discussion.  But at present their total moral lapse with respect to predatory clergy is sufficient.

Well, Richard, that is something of a paradox. Catholicism is supposed to be a package, all-encompassing deal. So if the liturgy is abominable at the local RC church, well, it is different from my (Protestant) Anglican church, and therefore that is how things are supposed to be.

My deeper reasons for staying is that I find that Anglican ways of approaching theology work, and that Roman ways do not. But I could join Rome and become another of the very many silently dissenting Catholics. The reason of that, however, is again a kind of loyalty above all else, and that sort of loyalty keeps me in an ECUSA parish even as the church in the large betrays its own supposed principles. One of the driving forces in the current crisis is particularly dissent over sexuality, both as it figures in morality and before that in the sacraments (and soon, I expect, in the liturgy); but the other is in church order. Where is Rome’s attraction in this for us Protestants? Well, it certainly isn’t in church order, because the problems we are having are exactly formed in a vision of (national) Anglicanism as being as hierarchical as Rome. No, I think it is first in doctrine, and second in the confidence that that doctrine would no longer be argued. But to do that you have to be accepting of inarguability in the large. Some of my Catholic friends (and some Tiber-crossers) would argue that without inarguability any theological deviancy is in fact possible. I do not think that for a Protestant that is a worthwhile argument, because to be inarguable, you have to be right, and there are things in Roman theology that just aren’t right.

I clicked over thinking I’d buy it, but the price is a bit steep.

I think this piece begs that we honestly answer the question, “why am I an Anglican?” Charles is right in saying that for a priest it is not difficult to create ‘a little Anglican-looking refuge’ within the vastness of Rome, but being Anglican is more about what we believe than what we necessarily do when the People of God gather together. If I am only an Anglican for liturgical reasons then I might as well think again, but if it is because of the richness of this Reformed Catholic manner of believing then the heritage of the Reformation echoes on. Ian Montgomery is quite right about our theological, doctrinal, and ecclesiological foundations.

Perhaps it is because my faith was nurtured in the midst of Protestant Anglicanism that there is very little about the Roman distinctives that do much for me, and some of them are positively at odds with the substance of the Scriptures, or seek to gloss over the distinctive teaching of the Bible. If I were tempted to jump the Anglican ship then it is highly likely that I would head for Orthodoxy and not even venture anywhere near Rome. Neither Geneva nor Augsburg do much for me either!

Anglicanism is going through a difficult time at the moment, some of this is its own doing and some of it is due to circumstances way beyond its control. We also function in a world that is morphing (as Eddie Gibbs puts it) and this demands a fluidity and flexibility that Anglicans find difficult, and in the Episcopal Church we are determined to be fluid, flexible, and creative about the wrong things. I have never regretted being an Anglican for, as my old friend and mentor Jim Packer has put it to me in private conversation, it is…

I hang around in various places where various groups of trad Catholics and Anglo-converts associate, so I get subjected to this sort of burble constantly. Of course it is completely delusional; indeed, they cannot understand why various Anglo-Catholics of their acquaintance don’t go over RIGHT NOW.

And of course Bergman is a priest—still. It’s not hard for him to create a little Anglican-looking refuge. The rest of us American laymen, assuming we don’t have a Valiant Cleric to lead us across, get stuck with the mess that is American Catholicism. It seems to me that the Tiber-crossing clerics, at least in the US, very quickly get sucked into the Reformation of their new church, deficient as it is (they think) in reverence and dignity.

I wonder what kind of Anglican reality Fr. Bergman understands?

But Father Bergman not only predicts a mass movement toward Rome. He believes Anglican Use may mark the beginning of the end of the Reformation. There will be “a flourishing of this throughout the world,” he says. “Wherever there are Anglicans, there will be people who want to enter Holy Mother Church.” As he told a rapt audience at St. Mary’s, “If we look at histories, heresies run themselves out after about 500 years. I believe we are seeing the last gasp of the Reformation in the mainline Protestant groups.”

And so, I ask Father Bergman, how does he feel about a liturgy using the words of Cranmer, one of the Reformation’s pivotal figures, in the Catholic Church? “A despicable fellow,” he replies.

While I do know, after more than 35 years in the US, that there have really only been a minority of Evangelical Anglicans in TEC; however the worldwide picture of the Anglican Communion shows that it is still very much a Church of the Reformation and this is shown by a distinctly evangelical spirituality outside of the US, particularly in the Global South.

One of the tragedies that I encounter in the US is that Anglicanism is some kind of “Catholic Lite.”  The suggestion above is that if Anglicans became serious then they would admit the doctrines and dogmas of “Holy Mother Church” and thus the Reformation would end as they were re-enfolded into the same.  Not so!  Protestant doctrine is alive and well.  It may be that there are a number of shrinking mainline Protestant denominations, however the Evangelical and Protestant spirituality undergirds the growing non-Roman churches in the US.  They and the US RC Church are still growing.  Overseas the Anglican Churches are growing…

Dear Ben (Cicero):

It would have been perfectly possible to criticise Standing Committees for failing in their job to manage the matter of bishops whose lifestyles compromise their duty without resorting to ad hom. remarks. What the academic proficiency of seminaries has to do with the practice, dating from the inception of seminaries over here to award hon. doctorates to alumni bishops has to do with the subject at hand is beyond me. They were merely copying the English practice, now discontinued, in automatically awarding diocesan bishops Lambeth DDs.

If we want to discuss seminary education today, I think that would be an interesting subject. It is obviously less and less possible for a small jurisdiction like TEC to raise up and employ a sufficient number of well-educated seminary teachers to staff the number of seminaries still in business. Accreditation requirements, which are intended to monitor standards have instead encouraged the replacement of Anglican studies with generic mainstream protestant curricula. Again it seems impossible for TEC to undertake a review of seminary standards and curricula without being guided by outmoded “liberal” approaches to parish life and mission. We are so used to using the term “progressive” for the powers that be that we often forget that their theology and post-millenium world view is frightfully old-fashioned. At every level the church is bedeviled by reactively conservative liberalism.

Tony

Thanks Benjamin for this digression and I think it is worthy of another thread.  The question of the relationship of Seminaries/Theological Colleges and the Academy.  More below:

On a broader level, there is a problem of culture here - that is, in the classic sense, there is a problem in our way of life.  The seminary system in ECUSA says it all: honorary doctorate degrees given by largely third-rate educational institutions to bishops simply because they are bishops!  And what is worse, these same seminaries dole out degrees to those bishops who support whatever church party happens to control a seminary!  Thus, not only are we dealing with a highly self-congratulatory yet academically weak institution, but we are also dealing with factions - each of whom is indeed both self-congratulatory and academically weak.  Supposedly “conservative” or “orthodox” seminaries are just as poor on the academic front as their “liberal” counterparts.  Trinity School of Ministry has never had any academic output; Paul Zahl’s books, however much they might appeal to a contingent within the Anglican Communion, have never been taken seriously be professional academics (which highlights a point: we need academic accountability.  Seminary professors who use their academic positions to preach academic tripe ought to be disciplined.)  Nashotah House has been academically lax for decades.  Where is the accountability?  The only bright lights on the North American horizon are Wycliffe in Toronto and Sewanee in Tennessee; Duke is up and coming, but very much in need of a strong Anglican theological presence at the school, not just a study track with the name.

I have always - coming from the Church of England - regarded seminary as chiefly a training/formation institution for future clergy and then as an academic institution derivatively.  Indeed I have seen these institutions produce terrible clergy…

On the one hand, yes, I agree - ad hominem, especially with something as tragic as alcoholism, should be avoided.  Yet, at the same time, the very fact that this bishop was able to retain his ministry for so long highlights some rather basic facts: lack of vision, lack of discipline, lack of integrity, juxtaposed with our church’s toleration of “prophetic” bishops.  The long-standing career of a loud, alcoholic bishop testifies not just to a profound level of moral indifference, but administrative foolishness in the highest degree on the part of the Episcopal Church’s hierarchy.  I didn’t find his comments offensive or ad hominem, so much as observant.

On a broader level, there is a problem of culture here - that is, in the classic sense, there is a problem in our way of life.  The seminary system in ECUSA says it all: honorary doctorate degrees given by largely third-rate educational institutions to bishops simply because they are bishops!  And what is worse, these same seminaries dole out degrees to those bishops who support whatever church party happens to control a seminary!  Thus, not only are we dealing with a highly self-congratulatory yet academically weak institution, but we are also dealing with factions - each of whom is indeed both self-congratulatory and academically weak.  Supposedly “conservative” or “orthodox” seminaries are just as poor on the academic front as their “liberal” counterparts.  Trinity School of Ministry has never had any academic output; Paul Zahl’s books, however much they might appeal to a contingent within the Anglican Communion, have never been taken seriously be professional academics (which highlights a point: we need academic accountability.  Seminary professors who use their academic positions to preach academic tripe ought to be disciplined.)  Nashotah House has been academically lax for decades.  Where is the accountability?  The…

Mead’s point is well taken and would have been better put if he’d resisted the urge to take a pot shot at the alcoholic bishop. It is this urge towards ad hom. comment which paints us all as angry old men and perhaps women.

I posted this (below) at Titusonenine:  I am sure that the writer and I come from different places, however I like him, his style and the challenge he makes.  I am one of those who believes that bishops should be of the bene esse of the Church and so would want to dispose of many who lead in TEC and would prefer none in their place if none could be found other than the bunch displaced.  I was especially interested in this article having just read the report of the press conference after the TEC EC meeting.  Anyway - a great challenge and I hope a provoking one.

I like this writer and particularly was struck with the following:

  African church leaders compare their American counterparts to George W. Bush: arrogantly unilateral, deaf to other points of view, seeking to impose a uniquely American agenda on those who do not agree.

  To mistake an ideology or a social model for the transcendent and always surprising (and irritating!) Kingdom of God is, technically speaking, the sin of idolatry.  It is to worship the work of our own hands.  What makes it worse is that to some degree in the mainline churches we have replaced faith in the scripturally based and historically rooted doctrines and values of the Christian heritage with faith in progressive social thought.
  Instead of proclaiming a gospel of salvation that still brings lost sinners streaming through the doors (ask the Pentecostals and evangelicals who have continued to grow even as we shrink) we issue statements urging the federal government to fulfill its contributions to the Millennium Development Goals and to raise the minimum wage.

This is exactly what we can learn from the Global South leaders.  Although they are like us far from perfect…

James, I think that you are spot on, as they say these days.  Resorting to litigation is part of the death spiral for pecusa.  It will likely be a slow death; dioceses without large cities will die first, dioceses with big cities and large endowments will be here to stay for a long time.  The decline that has already begun is not a pretty site.  On the other side, the ACNA doesn’t have much political power in the halls of power in the Anglican Communion, but ACNA will grow as we plant churches and evangelize.  We already have recognition from many primates, but we know that pecusa is a dominant player in greater recognition.  It could be a long road to offical recognition, but ACNA is set on a gospel path that is not dependent on the ABC or the ACC.  I know that those who put church order above gospel truth do not like the path of the ACNA, but the ACNA is more realistic than the CP crowd about the realities of pecusa and the gospel.

And Fr. Clavier, please don’t preempt Lent.  Jesus is in the desert withstanding the temptations of the devil.

Edwin:  I am referring specifically to the issues of properties and the allowance of alternative episcopal oversight.  Had TEC been willing to negotiate these issues earlier, then a different course of events would probably have occurred.  My point is that had TEC agreed to negotiate a “safe haven” within the Communion for the predecessor groups which later became the ACNA, then perhaps we wouldn’t be in the position we are in now.  But when TEC refused to negotiate from the outset on any of the critical issues, this led to the ACNA reacting by drawing its own lines in the sand, namely to decide to declare itself its own Province and lobby the Communion for eventual recognition of it and nonrecognition of TEC.  TEC made the rules (by not negotiating) and the ACNA is simply beating TEC at the game which TEC chose to play.

Yes, the ACNA has some powerful allies in the Global South and CofE Evangelical wing, but I think it would be a stretch to describe either group as being Communion “insiders.”  The fact remains that in order for there to be a negotiated settlement to the TEC/ACNA dispute, it is TEC which still holds all the cards for now.  That may change over time in the Communion (which I think is the hope of the Covenant) as TEC continues its trajectory out of the Communion.

I would agree with you that it would be wrong to think of the ACNA as being a “victim” and I do not suggest that it should be seen as such.  In the long run, the ACNA is probably better situated to grow and become stronger.  It is most certainly no victim!  My concluding point was that rather then wasting our hopes and energy in pursuing something which will not…

On the flip side, the ACNA has now drawn its own line in the sand - that it is its own independent province that will never again come under the aegis of TEC again - it has chosen to go its own way, come what may.  Quite frankly, I think that this hardening of position has come in response to TEC’s refusal to negotiate anything as, domestically, the ACNA is born out of powerlessness, while TEC holds all the levers of power.

I’m not sure how you are defining the “levers of power,” or what you think the two sides are competing for. The ACNA is far more in tune with the general religious sensibilities of American Christians than the Episcopal Church, and at least where I live it exploits that particular kind of “power.” The local ACNA congregation is much more successful in attracting students from the evangelical college where I teach than my own parish is, for instance. In the landscape of American religion, the institution that cuts itself loose from historic structures and makes a bold appeal to American populism actually enjoys a good deal of power. Similarly, the ACNA has a good deal of leverage within the Communion, especially in the “Global South” and in the powerful evangelical wing of the C of E.

Both sides are disingenuous when they try to position themselves as victims. Both sides have power, of different kinds.

Edwin

I think that trust is a big issue, but not the only one.  I grew up in British Columbia, Canada and the one thing that could be counted on besides death and taxes were public employee union strikes.  These frequently were resolved with the utilization of mediators.  However, there were times when the parties were so far apart from each other that the mediator would book out and say that until the parties redefined their goals in the dispute, there would be no resolution.

Sometimes the parties’ goals are too far apart for negotiations to work.  In that case, the parties decide to pursue their paths on their own, come what may.  Trust becomes the big issue when the two sides do not correctly perceive the other side’s goals, and believe instead that the other side is not really willing to come to an acceptable agreement.  Then a mediator can build trust so that each party realizes that the other party’s demands are more reasonable than they had been prepared to think.

But I am not convinced that simply lack of trust is the primary issue in North American Anglicanism’s troubles.  It seems to me that in the domestic Anglican/Episcopal civil war, TEC and ACNA are simply too far apart in their goals for a mediator to even have a chance, even if the trust issue could be overcome.  I think that the reason for this is quite simply that TEC refuses (for strategic reasons) to negotiate at all.  This is because in order for there to be a negotiated settlement, the status of the ACNA would need to be - in some sense - legitimized, and this the PB and her allies will not agree to.  This has been made very clear by the PB herself (see her deposition…

Great post. I thoroughly agree. A further development of this is that sometimes (not always) what was originally a “liberal” position becomes orthodox. Liberals like to point this out, but draw the false conclusion that no position should ever be ruled out as heretical, because (horror of horrors) posterity may disagree with us. So what? The dialectic of which Adam speaks is necessary. We need a robust orthodoxy against which “liberal” theology can define itself—but by the same token the “orthodox” must always be ready to engage in dialogue with liberals rather than writing them off as unworthy partners.

If the Church does eventually come up with a coherent rationale for treating gay unions as something analogous or identical to traditional marriage, then it will be because (not in spite) of the vigorous defense of the traditional position by conservatives. And I say the same thing with regard to issues where I take the “liberal” position, such as women’s ordination.

But the reverse is also true (in both cases). The question of gay unions can’t simply be dismissed without consideration on the basis of tradition. We need to hear the questions raised by “liberals,” and in the end they will only strengthen orthodoxy, whatever the eventual consensus turns out to be (if there is one, as I hope). And similarly, if a coherent rationale does some day emerge for the male-only priesthood (as far as I can see no such rationale has yet been articulated that adequately addresses the anthropological and Christological issues) it will be because of the challenges to the traditional practice, not in spite of them.

So cliched as it may seem, we really do need each other!

Edwin

Tony,

  When all of this got started years ago I urged people to watch again the Kathleen Turner Michael Douglas, Danny DeVito movie “The War of the Roses.”  It is a useful reflection on these matters.  People went to war without counting the cost and now it becomes a matter of enduring until the one side of the other surrenders.
  But what a thoughtful person in the General Synod might be wise to take to heart is this; this is your own future and the parties are already aligning to repeat on English soil what has been done on TEC soil.  And since England is already permitting same sex blessings, even of clergy, they should count themselves lucky that so far everyone has winked and nodded at this. But their own day is coming.
  And in the end the courts, as you say,  will coldly and calmly divide the parties.

The question of who is right or who is wrong, of evaluating the “he said, she said” evidence, becomes secondary to a basic Christian concept. Could not provision have been made, a settlement agreed upon, an untidy preservation of a unity while perhaps living apart for a while? The answer usually given is that attempts were made but one side or the other couldn’t be trusted. But had there been trust, there would have been no need for negotiation. In such circumstances a neutral mediator may often help to overcome mistrust enough to reach a settlement which would be best for the well-being of each side.

Unfortunately, the distrust has now reached such a level that I doubt that the two sides would be able to agree on a neutral mediator or even agree that any mediator is in fact, neutral. A mediator who doesn’t take “our” side (whichever side that may be), must be doing so because s/he’s on “their” side. The possibility that the mediator is on a third side, or no side, doesn’t seem to occur to anyone.

That’s good, John. Charity and clarity go together. As Augustine says, we cannot truly love what we do not know and we cannot truly know what we do not love.

“Interpreting One Another with Charity”—perhaps if we were all to substitute the word ‘Clarity’ for ‘Charity’ we might be a lot further along….

Ben, Thanks.

I very much appreciate what Matt has posted, and on this Ash Wednesday, when sin and confession are very much uppermost in our minds, I recognize that I have been less than charitable in my disputing, especially during these last 12-15 years. In the process I know that I have (sometimes unwittingly) driven a coach and horses between myself and other Christians with whom I have disagreed passionately. Yet it is extremely difficult to maintain charity when you have the deepest conviction that others are wrong, misguided, even making dangerous assertions about belief and behavior.

The challenge, however, is how to be charitable without becoming sloppy in the way we think and believe. If we care deeply about something, and about truth, then we are going to be wholehearted advocates for what we believe, especially if we are of a more fiery temperament. Clearly, it is vital that we allow our minds to engage with every facet of the issue that is in hand, and the discipline of attempting to understand one’s interlocutor’s position from the inside is necessary, but what makes this difficult to follow through on is when the other is determined to push ahead with their agenda come hell or high water—or whatever is said in discussion and debate.

I have turned many times to Miroslav Volf’s book, “Exclusion and Embrace,” whose fundamental point is that it is only through the cross and at the foot of the cross, together with those with whom we are at odds, that we can even perceive a Christian understanding of reconciliation and forgiveness. We also have to willingly dig inside ourselves and our thinking to see where we are deceived, and where we might be deceiving ourselves. Volf writes, “To serve life rather than death, the will to truth…

Daniel:

Another perspective to your comment

which is why the holiness that I see in the same-sex couples I know has prompted me to rethink the question

can be found in True Union in the Body? which was commissioned some years ago by Abp. Gomez.  That Paper stated:

4.27 Having said this, it must be acknowledged that important ‘goods’ can be discerned in same-sex relationships (as indeed in some illicit forms of heterosexual relationships).  Something is wrong when the Church refuses to acknowledge that two people in a same-sex relationship may well find they ‘grow steadily in fidelity and in mutual caring, understanding and support…and achieve great, even heroic sacrifice and devotion’.  The fact that certain human practices are not wholly devoid of good is, however, not in itself sufficient warrant for the Church to confer legitimacy upon them or commend the practice itself (just as the existence of ‘honour among thieves’ does not legitimate the practice of theft). If the Church refuses to confer legitimacy, this is not to deny that such ‘relationships may have moral integrity in varying degrees without the Church’s formal authorization’.  The act of blessing same-sex unions, however, would be tantamount to saying that these good qualities are displayed in homosexual relations as homosexual relations. But this we cannot do. If the Church were to say this, then it would be failing to speak the truth in love according to Scripture and the Christian Tradition.

...there are many in the CofE who consider themselves to be in communion with ACNA, but that is not the official position of the CofE.

and

The question of validity of orders has to do with a few issues.  First, what provinces recognize the depositions of pecusa - the majority don’t.  Second, what provinces would accept an ACNA clergyperson for ministry in their province?  I don’t know the answer to this one, but it will come up at some point.  I am sure that there are other issues as well; these two seem to me to be good reality checks.

Both very good points.  And I think that they point to the reality that the situation in the Anglican Communion right now is fluid.  Change doesn’t happen overnight, and this is where both the TEC liberals and the impatient conservatives have trouble seeing things clearly.  Daniel is quite correct that the CofE Synod chose not to explicitly recognize ACNA orders as CofE policy (though I think that such a decision would have been ultra vires the Synod anyway, though I am open to being corrected on that point).  And Tony is quite right that TEC’s purported “depositions” of ACNA clergy have not been recognized throughout most of the Communion, including the CofE.

Thus, it is (in my view) extremely short-sighted to simply analyze the Synod motion in terms of its immediate legal effect.  Rather, you need to look to the longer term trend.  Right now, I think the trend seems to be this:  TEC’s purported depositions are becoming increasingly not recognized by the Communion at large, and if Glasspool is made a TEC bishop, then TEC orders will become increasingly not necessarily recognized by the Communion at large.  On the other hand, ACNA orders are recognized by the majority…

The question of validity of orders has to do with a few issues.  First, what provinces recognize the depositions of pecusa - the majority don’t.  Second, what provinces would accept an ACNA clergyperson for ministry in their province?  I don’t know the answer to this one, but it will come up at some point.  I am sure that there are other issues as well; these two seem to me to be good reality checks.

Four points for clarification:

1. Of course my comments are as much spin as anyone’s, although I think that I have summarised the Synod’s actions correctly.

2. I only took Mrs. Ashworth at her word. She may well have had a change of heart and be satsfied with the final resolution. It is interesting to note that although everyone knew about the prospects of the amendments, Mrs. Ashworth said the day before that she had no idea what amendments would be offered.

3. One feature of being in communion is the recognition of the validity of one another’s orders. That recognition has been witheld for ACNA by the Synod for the present. As I wrote earlier, there are many in the CofE who consider themselves to be in communion with ACNA, but that is not the official position of the CofE.

4. Even though Mrs. Ashworth’s resolution failed, I believe that the resolution that was passed leaves open, wisely,the possibility of a positive decision in the future. I think it was too soon for the Ashworth resolution to pass, and I admit that I would rather not have ACNA in the Communion. However that is chiefly due to my sense that ACNA may not want to be in the Communion if TEC is, and I don’t want TEC out of the Communion. If it were to pass that both ACNA and TEC were member Churches of the Communion, I would accept that.

There is to be an interview tomorrow, Feb 14, on BBC1 1:00 p.m. GMT. where we can hear what she has to say.

I suspect that in spite of how hopeful the resolution may be for ACNA Mrs. Ashworth is not at all happy with the Synod’s action.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=23139  I look forward to hearing what she has to say.  I am expecting her to be pleased with the result at Synod as I am - contrary to the TEC spin which I count to be delusional.