GLASS HALF FULL?

Saturday, February 7th, 2009 | Uncategorized

The American Anglican Council’s Phil Ashey tries to put the best face on Alexandria that he can:

We also give great thanks that the Primates unanimously reaffirmed the traditional, Biblical teaching in regards to human sexuality as defined in Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1979), stating “The position of the Communion defined by Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its entirety remains.” (emphasis added) This position of course stands in stark contrast to TEC’s consecration of a non-celibate homosexual as bishop, the increasing number of dioceses who are calling on General Convention to repeal Resolution B033’s moratorium on any further consecrations of homosexuals or lesbians as bishops, and the proliferation of same-sex blessings and authorization for rites for blessing same-sex unions at the diocesan level.

One can only wonder how the Presiding Bishop of TEC could sign this Communiqué given her very public disagreement with the teaching in Lambeth 1.10—unless of course, she sees it as the former Presiding Bishop saw it, merely another speed bump to disregard in an alternate reality.

It appears the Primates were able to openly and honestly share their experiences, perceptions and convictions about the new teaching on sexuality that TEC has imposed on the rest of the Communion. While they observed a spirit of open and respectful dialogue, they also declared that this teaching has damaged and fractured relationships, and threatens the very soul of the Communion. We give thanks that the Primates recognized the inability of the current “Instruments of Unity” to address TEC’s shredding of the fabric of the Communion—an inability which the Primates described as an “ecclesial deficit.”

We are grateful the Primates recognized the Common Cause Partners, and the Anglican Church in North America, as faithful Anglicans whom they described as “dear sisters and brothers for whom we understand membership in the Anglican Communion is profoundly important.”

Finally, we are grateful that in the Primates’ diagnosis of the sickness that threatens the soul of the Communion, they have called for a professionally mediated, face-to-face meeting of all the significant parties to the crisis in North America. For the first time they are including in Communion processes those orthodox and Biblically faithful Anglicans who have been sickened by the false gospel of TEC, and have fled to or sought refuge in other Provinces of the Communion.

But Ashey is forced to admit Alexandria is completely inadequate.

We believe the false Gospel proclaimed by the leadership of TEC, and advanced by its surrogates throughout the Communion, continues to enslave people in sin and deters them from seeing the need to change. We believe this false gospel threatens to undermine the Anglican Communion’s witness to the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ—the truth that sets us free. We regret that the Primates’ Communiqué fails to provide an effective response to this threat.

The Primates repeatedly acknowledge the need for mutual accountability. But the instrument they propose for this is a “Covenant” which has no mechanism for enforcement whatsoever. It is a covenant which the Primates describe as having a “relational basis and tone,” “freedom and robust accountability.”(3) Robust accountability cannot be attained without delineating the limits of Provincial freedom. The Biblical teaching on human sexuality in Lambeth 1979 Resolution 1.10 exactly delineated the limits of sexual freedom for Anglican Christians. This Communion teaching, so unanimously reaffirmed by the Primates, has no mechanism for enforcement under the proposed Covenant. There are no meaningful sanctions for those who will continue to flaunt Lambeth 1.10. The proposed Covenant is a recipe for the disaster we have seen repeated in the Global North where Biblical truth always takes a back seat to possessive individualism.

Where is the gracious restraint and self-limitation of a TEC House of Bishops who have tortured the plain meaning of the canons to depose 12 bishops and 104 priests and deacons for transferring to another province of the Anglican Communion in order to maintain integrity and faithfulness to Communion teaching on human sexuality? Where is the gracious restraint and self-limitation where, without any due process or appeal, the Presiding Bishop deposes a sitting bishop for what he might do? Or where she deposes a bishop ordained and canonically resident in the Church of England? Or where she dismisses a lawfully constituted diocesan standing committee and substitutes her own? Or where she hires a personal litigator to guide the accelerating litigation on the very eve of the Primates meeting? And the list goes on…

We trust the Primates read the fine print in footnote 11, which states that “the advent of schemes such as the Communion Partners Fellowship and the Episcopal Visitors scheme instituted by the Presiding Bishop in the United States should be sufficient to provide for the care of those alienated within the Episcopal Church from recent developments.”

So what is the point of gathering all the significant parties alienated by TEC for a professionally mediated conversation, when the result has already been pre-determined in this footnote of the Communiqué?  For those still within TEC, will the “conversation” simply be a presentation of two alternatives to choose from: on the one hand a Communion Partners Fellowship “scheme” (their word, not mine) that has no details as yet beyond DEPO and mere fellowship… Or an Episcopal Visitors “scheme” imposed by the Presiding Bishop without any consultation with the parties she and TEC’s leadership have aggrieved?

And Ashey resents the fact that Alexandria, in effect, blames the victims.

And there lies the rub with a “provisional holding arrangement”. From my experience as a former prosecutor, I know what a “holding tank” is: it’s the room where “troublemakers” are held before they are brought before judge and/or jury for a plea, trial and sentencing.  Elsewhere, the Primates refer to faithful Anglicans in North America as people “[with whom] we earnestly desire reconciliation.”  Whether intended or not, the language of paragraph 14 and footnote 11 casts orthodox Anglicans in North America as the troublemakers who need to be reconciled to the rest of the Communion. This language ignores the schismatic actions of TEC that have torn the fabric of the Communion, and continue to shred it to pieces.

What is the difference between this…

Primates of the GAFCON Primates’ Council meeting in London have issued the following statement about the Province of the Anglican Church in North America.

We welcome the news of the North American Anglican Province in formation. We fully support this development with our prayer and blessing, since it demonstrates the determination of these faithful Christians to remain authentic Anglicans.

North American Anglicans have been tragically divided since 2003 when activities condemned by the clear teaching of Scripture and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion were publicly endorsed. This has left many Anglicans without a proper spiritual home. The steps taken to form the new Province are a necessary initiative. A new Province will draw together in unity many of those who wish to remain faithful to the teaching of God’s word, and also create the highest level of fellowship possible with the wider Anglican Communion.

Furthermore, it releases the energy of many Anglican Christians to be involved in mission, free from the difficulties of remaining in fellowship with those who have so clearly disregarded the word of God.

…and this?

The question of recognizing a parallel province in North America was premature, [Orombi and Venables] said, because the underlying theological differences had not been addressed. 
 
“Being an Anglican without knowing Jesus” conferred membership “in a club” and not in the true church, Archbishop Orombi said. Before a vote on a third province is taken, he said, “we have to see what happens to the Communion.”
 
Archbishop Orombi said he hoped that a theological council would be called by Archbishop Williams that could devote the time and expertise to engage in these issues.
 
“My proposal is, let’s have two sets of theologians and debate these things,” he said. “Primates don’t have the time,” and the primates’ meetings are not the proper venue for these issues.
 
Both primates supported the Anglican Covenant process as it would clearly define where the parties stood.
 
“It will be another way of describing we are not in Communion,” Archbishop Orombi said.
 
The two primates urged traditionalists in the United States to take heart from the agreement and both pledged the support of their provinces until a “safe place” had been established for them. Archbishop Orombi urged traditionalists to make their case to Archbishop Williams, as to why they needed a province. Traditionalists must “hold together, remain together” and persevere in their fight, “for we are standing with you,” he said.

Answer: GAFCON giveth and GAFCON taketh away.  For whatever reason, two members of the GAFCON Primates Council changed their minds so what was once entirely possible, a new North American Anglican province, has now become barely theoretical.  Nevertheless, orthodox Anglicans should “hold together, remain together” because Orombi and Venables are standing with us.

Are they now?  Given the fact that two conservative primates at Alexandria don’t seem to have offered much of any argument whatsoever for a North American province and now insist that it is up to North Americans to make their case for a new province to Dr. Williams, excuse me if I don’t celebrate all this “support.”

What else do North American Anglicans need to say or do?  Do Venables and Orombi seriously think that the inventor of the Panel of Reference will ever agree to a new North American province regardless of the case made?  Exactly what are our “allies” there for anyway?

What would you have had them do, Johnson?  They could have had Bob Duncan fly in and they could have been photographed with him.  They could dropped the name “Anglican Church in North America” every chance they got and acted as if ACNA recognition was only a matter of time no matter what the primatial statement eventually said.

Instead, they surrendered.  What was once a concrete goal that “conservative” primates publicly supported has become an abstract theory, a theory, moreover, for which the primates have basically disclaimed all responsibility. 

“Mediated conversations” between two mutually-exclusive opinions are recommended.  Assuming anything at all results from this yammering, it will be a solution that no one much likes and that “conservatives” will not be able to accept without admitting that they love the Episcopal Organization more than the Gospel.

Leaving aside Miss Russell’s little hen party’s usual whining whenever anyone hints that homosexual activity might be sinful, I see no wins for conservatives in the Alexandria Communiqué.  The primates said nothing there that they haven’t been saying for the last five years.

Indeed, in some respects, conservatives are worse off now then they were last year.  A North American province is now considerably less possible than it once was.  Anglican procedure must be followed, we are told, and we have a good deal more babbling to do before a new province can even be considered.

Which means it never will happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this.  And which also means that I’m not going to waste any more time on these cowards.

19 Comments to GLASS HALF FULL?

alfonso
February 7, 2009

FWIW, a continuation of thought from the other thread…an offering from James the Lesser Buffet, to the tune of Margaritaville:

Drinkin’ the wine; red
Readin’ the Op-Ed
“All of Those Schismatics are Toads”
Says “fundy bitches
Are too big for their britches”
Thank God I’m not mentioned with those…

Chorus:
Wastin’ away again in the A.C.-taville
Searching for my lost flavor of salt
Some people claim that there’s a ++woman to blame
But I’m told… it’s Franky’s fault

I dont know the reason
I coddle high treason
First didn’t want to, everyone knew
But I’m still on the inside
In bed with Baal’s bride
And how I got here I haven’t a clue

Chorus:
Wastin’ away again in the A.C.taville
Searching for my lost flavor of salt
Some people claim that there’s a ++woman to blame
But I’ll hold … it’s Rowan’s fault

Primatial pond-scum
Didn’t shout I’m a victum
S’pose I hope they’d guard my conceit
But pathetic voices
Honored my choices
Must be dust I see leaving their feet

Chorus:
Wastin’ away again in the A.C.taville
Searching for my lost flavor of salt
Some people claim that there’s a ++woman to blame
But I know … it’s my own damn fault
Yes and some people claim that there’s a ++woman to blame
And I know … it’s my own damn fault

Dan Crawford
February 7, 2009

Yeah, I was gonna quit two years ago, but I’m still hooked. And the addiction provides no kick at all.

Jim McNeely+
February 7, 2009

Chris, You are spot on! I was at the “Hope and a Future” Conference in Pittsburgh, 2005. We were reprimanded by a certain bishop from a certain African country to choose between being in TEC or being with them. Fueled by this challenge, +Duncan et al started making a way for a clear break from TEC towards a fully orthodox faithful province. These faithful sisters and brothers now endure the hounding and pestering of TEC and her minion of lawyers – not to mention the Stalinism of Dr. Jefferts-Schori and her rabid pouch David Booth-Beers.

And now we see this as a result.

As I mentioned elsewhere – and stand behind now fully – the very bishops who called us to scriptural faithfulness and organizational integrity have now thrown us under the bus in Alexandria, proving to me once and for all that they have no testicular strength for the very fight they acknowledge must happen.

Cowards – every last one of them!

-Jim+

The young fogey
February 7, 2009

After a lot of thought (probably too much) my reaction is:

So what?

This is not the Assyrians, Oriental Orthodox, Orthodox or Protestants breaking with Rome, a REAL ending of communion.

More like the local soccer league splitting.

Both sides commune all baptised Christians so why all the fuss?

Let this Protestant thing break up.

Truth Unites... and Divides
February 7, 2009

CJ: “What else do North American Anglicans need to say or do?”

(A) Stay in TEc (non-Communion Partner parish or diocese).

(B) Stay in Communion Partner parish or diocese.

(C) Join ACNA church.

(D) Join a Continuing Anglican church.

(E) Swim the Tiber.

(F) Swim to Constantinopole.

(G) Join another Protestant church/denomination.

Any other choices?

“And which also means that I’m not going to waste any more time on these cowards.”

Cowards. Another word to describe Institutionalist-Idolator-Enablers.

Marian
February 7, 2009

The following from ++Hiltz gives an idea of why the GAFCON primates bottled – they just didn’t have the support:

“Archbishop Hiltz said that, while there was “a range of opinions” among primates about the new province being proposed by the Common Cause Partnership, “there’s no doubt that a strong majority had little interest or energy for any notion of a parallel jurisdiction.” He said the opinions ranged from his own position of “absolutely not,” to those who said, “well, for the sake of those who feel that they haven’t got a home in the Anglican Church of Canada or The Episcopal Church maybe we should be creating some kind of a provisional measure for them.”

The primate said he responded by saying that such a provision, called shared episcopal ministry, was in place in the Canadian church…

Archbishop Hiltz said that a number of primates indicated that the proposed new province was “not in keeping with our way of forming provinces; we’ve traditionally, in the Anglican Communion, created provinces out of a sense of mission, not orthodoxy, not a test of faith.”

He noted that there had been “a lot more energy, in terms of discussion, around the possibilities of mediated conversation leading to reconciliation.””

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/100/article/hiltz-welcomes-proposed-mediated-conversation/?cHash=23d3bba573

Christopher Johnson
February 7, 2009

Chances are, this Prot ends up in Geneva, Foags. But isn’t that what Walter Kasper told the Anglicans at Lambeth? Lose the via media conceit, decide once and for all just what it is that you folks are and we’ll take it from there?

Sinner
February 7, 2009

Both sides commune all baptised Christians so why all the fuss?

because even the Windsor report have said that liberals, gays, and their enablers are not Christians. yes it did say this. That’s the issue, that’s the fuss.

there’s no doubt that a strong majority had little interest or energy for any notion of a parallel jurisdiction

Well good! Frankly I think it is just American arrogance that the rag-tag mess that is APNA should become a province. You don’t deserve it. Even Duncan served most of his years in ECUSA: a lot of his is his damn fault. Even Chuck Colson had the good sense to realise he wasn’t part of the future of the Republican party!

The fact is a parallel province is a true defeat for Christ. Do that, and then TEC will send “missionaries” (perhaps we should call them “sodomaries”) to Africa etc and set up new Churches and insist they can be Christian and Anglican. And it will split the CoE – and the ABC doesn’t want that. Let’s be clear: no-one wants a parallel province.

What we want is TEC destroyed; if that is not possible, then TEC must be expelled from the communion. That is the first priority. If that cannot be achieved then the GAFCON provinces absolutely must leave.

Because a parallel province means that we all have to accept that TEC are Christians, that liberals are Christians, that gays and their supporters are Christians, that abortionists and their supporters are Christians – basically that mass murderers are Christians – just as much as anyone else. And they are not.

Sinner
February 7, 2009

Note that I not supporting a US province now I don’t support FCA or the various Anglican missions. But I think – for now, unless and until they become a real provice, with bishops untainted by ECUSA – they should stay as missions under non-ECUSA bishops, ideally sent over from Africa, or Sydney, or even the UK.

Truth Unites... and Divides
February 8, 2009

CJ: “What else do North American Anglicans need to say or do?”

(G) Join another Protestant church/denomination.

CJ: “Chances are, this Prot ends up in Geneva”

No doubt, Geneva’s better than Canterbury.

The young fogey
February 8, 2009

Christopher: yes!

Clown Celebrant
February 8, 2009

Let’s have more listening. In fact, every time an Anglican uses the word “listening,” let’s have a drink. Also, when an Anglican says “God is doing a new thing!” like the bishop of Tennessee, Alfonso Bowerschlappy, says in his ridiculous diocesan newsletter, let’s have a drink! It’s all a new thing, Bowerschlitz, new and gay and Anglican in the most American way imaginable!! Hey, Bupschlowerschmitz, the Bishop of Tennessee, are you happy with the Anglican Way now? Of course you are Mr. Sewanee Endowment.

Clown Celebrant
February 8, 2009

I kid, Mr. Bishop, sir. I kid. I’m just a clown, so what do I know about new things and such? Please don’t write a stern missive to the diocese about unity, I’ll be quiet and take my cracker and juice in submission.

vocalise
February 8, 2009

Jim,

I agree with you. We have been betrayed by the ones we thought would stick up for us in the Anglican Communion which, by the way more, resembles the USSR just before it collapsed under the weight of it’s own bankruptcy.

I don’t want to hear anymore “orthodox” AB’s “truthiness” speeches, flatulent threats that never materialize. Their motto is now “Choose this day who you will have tea and scones with.” They have gone from holy agitators to cowardly collaborators.

If you want to have a real breath of fresh air, go to the RC websites. Most of their stories are about Christ being Lord without asterisks and the Vatican dealing with heretics and wingnuts. There are few theological arguments. Watch EWTN and there are Christians actually witnessing. Why the hell am I wasting my time with this bunch of Anglican Primatial riff raff?

bill C
February 8, 2009

I believe that the ‘unity’ that is coming out of Alexandria reflects more of an acceptance by the primates and the churches that they represent that two diverging Anglican paths have been and will continue to grow.
Revisionists are not going to change their direction and traditional Anglicans are going to hold fast to their beliefs. IMHO the Anglican Communion is no more, rather a federation that will ultimately split into two. I think that the ‘peace’ that everyone -liberal and conservative- saw between the primates was perhaps a true acceptance of this fact. That in itself would be a freeing experience where primates could express their love, caring and prayers for one another.
At the same time, primates such as ++s Orombi and Venables made it clear that they remain steadfastly committed to evangelizing the world with the gospel message of sin, repentance and acceptance of Jesus and his actions on the cross. Liberal archbishops are clearly set on their path of social mission and cultural change.
In North America, this battle is starkly clear. A new province is coalescing and will continue to grow and will cross the million mark within a few years.
Whether the liberal side of the church ever accepts ACNA as a province is a moot point. Ultimately, it will emerge as a province in its own right in the Gafcon community of provinces, which I see as the focal point for the traditional expression of the church.
In the meantime, TEC faces the unpleasant reality that much of the orthodox component has left, is still leaving, and will continue to leave. +Schori is fighting this tooth and nail, unfortunately for all concerned through litigation and denial. The ‘peace’ and ‘acceptance that came out of Alexandria was (IHM) not felt by her. She arrived late and left early and I suspect that the inevitability of the coming split was not to her liking. I believe that the ‘unity’ that is coming out of alexandria reflects more of an acceptance by the primates and the churches that they represent that two diverging Anglican paths have been and will continue to grow.
Revisionists are not going to change their direction and traditional Anglicans are going to hold fast to their beliefs. IMHO the Anglican Communion is no more, rather a federation that will ultimately split into two. I think that the ‘peace’ that everyone -liberal and conservative- saw between the primates was perhaps a true acceptance of this fact. That in itself would be a freeing experience where primates could express their love, caring and prayers for one another.
At the same time, primates such as ++s Orombi and Venables made it clear that they remain steadfastly committed to evangelizing the world with the gospel message of sin, repentance and acceptance of Jesus and his actions on the cross. Liberal archbishops are clearly set on their path of social mission and cultural change.
In North America, this battle is starkly clear. A new province is coalescing and will continue to grow and will cross the million mark within a few years.
Whether the liberal side of the church ever accepts ACNA as a province is a moot point. Ultimately, it will emerge as a province in its own right in the Gafcon community of provinces, which I see as the focal point for the traditional expression of the church.
In the meantime, TEC faces the unpleasant reality that much of the orthodox component has left, is still leaving, and will continue to leave. +Schori is fighting this tooth and nail, unfortunately for all concerned through litigation and denial. The ‘peace’ and ‘acceptance that came out of Alexandria was (IHM) not felt by her. She arrived late and left early and I suspect that the inevitability of the coming split was not to her liking.

Reality disconnect in the Anglican world « The Age To Come
February 8, 2009

[...] So, I had planned on saying something about the recent Primates communique, here. However, I see that this has been dissected with clarity in many places, such as here and here. A pithy summary of this document would be that it contains paragraphs of turgid Anglican prose with promises to talk lots more. And a seeming backing away from ACNA from the orthodox primates, as MCJ elaborates on here. [...]

Allen Lewis
February 8, 2009

The Global South Primates are just playing the same game that TEC, AC of C and the Anglican Communion Office are playing: sign the damn communiqué and then ignore it.

TEC has taught them well.

What is really going on is not “ecclesial deficit” as much as it is “ecclesial cowardice!”

But this is what our supposed bishops have turned into. Liars, dissemblers and deceivers. Instead of having the courage to stand up and speak out, they are going to Fudge Out.

Sinner
February 8, 2009

That in itself would be a freeing experience where primates could express their love, caring and prayers for one another.

all of which the liberal scum repeated mistake for support. I say we follow Christ: we abjure the heretic, the damned, the scribes, the pharisees, the whitened sepulchers who are surely damned!

We hate liberals and all their works; we care for them only when we destroy them and their “churches” and their evil desires to change the Communion; we pray only that they be utterly destroyed – so that the power and true love of Christ may be made known.

We love what is good

We hate what is evil

robroy
February 9, 2009

Here is what I wrote at Titus:
—
Here is what I think happened (all speculation):

Who wrote the communique? Aspinall. I think they took a cue from the American HoB and presented the final draft of the communique in the waning moments of the meeting. The anti-proselytization footnote was placed in the document at the last minute, and the orthodox didn’t notice it. Hence, the big disconnect from the interviews [of Venables and Orombi] and the document as well as the current loud silence about this footnote. They are probably now discussing how to respond. I am afraid that the orthodox primates weren’t as wise as the serpentine Rowan Williams and Aspinall.

Rowan Williams has clearly shown that he would like to rid himself of the troublesome GAFCon-ners. The early invitations served no purpose but to un-invite them because he knew of their open statements that they wouldn’t attend with consecrators of Gene Robinson, and he knew full well that they are people of conviction and integrity. Unlike, the DeS meeting, he didn’t let the agenda in Alexandria be changed and he, himself, appointed the drafters of the communique at the outset.

Chris Taylor is simply wrong about agreeing to the no proselytization nonsense. This is spiritual warfare and agreeing tie one hand behind your back when one is fighting the ultra-rich revisionists is foolish. Rowan will dangle some sort of recognition of the ACNA, but the only way to obtain it is for the TEClub to decrease and the ACNA to increase.

Leave a comment

Support The MCJ

Archive

Search

Links

Meta