to reiterate: read father ephraim radner's latest doohickey: its v. good, and represents father wb's opinion pretty exactly

Some highlights from the whole thing: (Father Ephraim's text is in italics):

We [conservative Episcopalians] must now choose our way with respect to the Communion, and choose it in a manner that can be evaluated rather clearly according to the Communion’s own calling.

....

...we now stand apart from them [official ECUSA structures and ECUSA bishops], and our work stands apart from theirs. If this puts us in conflict with these structures and their representatives, so be it.

....

As an Anglican Christian, I continue to wish to give myself to the vocation of Anglicanism within the larger Church, one of embodying a faithful Scriptural and ministry to Christ Jesus within the difficult yet glorious discipleship of “communion”. I continue to believe that this is an imperative gift to offer the larger Church in a time of wrenching human confusion and uncertainty in the trust of the Gospel within the world. I remain an Anglican, because I believe that God continues to give us work to do.

....

Those bishops who do not in fact share the “mind” of the House of Bishops, must say so openly and separate themselves from that mind; they must have a different mind, a mind that is at one with the larger church’s.

They must respond positively to the Primates’ request, by publicly acceding to their recommendations, both in word and deed: clarifying their own commitments on matters under dispute, and following through with the request to gather and nominate a Primatial Vicar to a Pastoral Council – now seemingly capable of being made up only of 3 persons, given TEC’s refusal to participate.

[These, I believe, are crucial. It is time for ALL American bishops to be unambiguous. There is a majority in the HoB whose commitment to the Communion is clearly secondary (at best). They have said so unambiguously. Windsor-minded / Camp Allen / Network bishops MUST now be equally clear.]

Individual congregations and clergy and laity within TEC should encourage Communion-minded bishops to this work, by urging them forward and committing themselves to the Pastoral Scheme as it unfolds under the direction of the Communion and the Communion-minded. Such a commitment could be given in a number of ways, but it should be done openly and clearly.

[Support your bishops when they speak and act unambiguously. Prod them when they don't. They need our support, just as we need them to act.]

Communion-minded bishops and their supporters may indeed face sanctions from the official structures of the TEC – other bishops, the legal offices of 815 and the Executive Council. This will represent the practical side of the conflict now upon us. But be of good cheer – He has overcome the world.

[When those living in darkness persecute us, its a good indication that we are behaving with integrity. Rejoice that we've been given an opportunity of confessing the faith and being maligned and opposed for it. And give thanks that no one is burning us at the stake. Yet. Support one another in tangible ways.]

We must in all things act together, and not apart. Shall there perhaps be a moment on October 1st when we shall stand as one mind and one heart? But if this is to happen, the choices we make today must move in this direction and not another.

[Unity is critical. The thorn in the flesh of the orthodox hitherto has been disunity. And the orthodox primates are not without some blame for this. But we must STOP NOW the fracturing off into various incoherent, foreign jurisdictions. Network bishops, AMiA bishops, and the CANA bishop must each forego maneuvering to become the Primatial Vicar, and lay aside their own agendas for the sake of orthodox unity. This is crucial. And the primates of the various "foreign jurisdictions" must work for and promote unity among all the orthodox in N. America, even if it is at the expense of the prerogatives and autonomy of their own American jurisdictions -- like AMiA and CANA. Unity is critical, and is the Achilles heal of the orthodox. Expect 815 to attempt to exploit it -- perhaps by making a counter-proposal, or putting forth her own vicar.]

Some have wondered if I am counseling us to “leave” the Episcopal Church. There are certainly ways to do this that are unambiguous, and I am not in a position to judge those who take such an unambiguous path. However, for those like myself who are committed to the Communion path outlined above, “leaving” is not as clear as it may seem. We have not moved; last week, our bishops as a House have moved.

[Amen. As Ronald Reagan, I think, said about the Democratic party: I never left it; it left me. Everyone should bear in mind that the culpability for the fallout in all of this is squarely on the shoulders of ECUSA as the innovators. If you innovate, you run the risk of alienating your brethren. But don't whine about it when others don't like your "new thing". This seems to be the infantile course of the ECUSA bishops. My advice to them: stop your moaning about how anguished and sorrowful you are at the Communion response to your innovations. You were warned before you went down this path. You went down it anyway. Now suck it up. Take responsibility for what you've done. If it's all worth it, then quit whining. If it wasn't worth it, then repent. But in any case, quit with the mewling hypocrisy about how sad you are.]

two pieces well worth reading

One is from Father Ephraim Radner, and constitutes Part 2 of the reflections I brought to your attention last week (which are also well worth (re)reading).

The other is from Jordan Hylden, a bright young thing (Fry on Waugh), and Junior Fellow at First Things and postulant in the Diocese of North Dakota. Jordan writes about the ECUSA House of Bishops' response to the Dar es Salaam Communique. Some of the more interesting bits from Jordan's piece:

In their statement, the American bishops accused the global Anglican primates of “unprecedented” spiritual unsoundness and solemnly spoke of the Episcopal Church’s “autonomy” and “liberation from colonialism,” which they understood to be threatened by the creeping rule of “a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.” Apparently, they were serious. With no sense of irony, the bishops of an overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and liberal American church actually saw fit to accuse their fellow Anglicans—many of whom are from poor third-world countries—of “colonialism.”

....

Sadly, the bishops’ rejection of the Pastoral Council means that the disorderly and painful fracturing of the Episcopal Church will likely continue apace, since the bishops do not seem willing to provide any sort of acceptable safe space for conservatives. It also means that tension with Rowan Williams and the primates will ratchet up another notch—their proposed Pastoral Council, by which the primates intended to work with the Episcopal Church, will almost certainly now be implemented against the Episcopal leadership’s will. Conservatives who wish to participate in it will have to do so in defiance of national church leadership, and they may be subject to discipline.

The absurdity of this situation—wherein Episcopalians could be disciplined for daring to conform to Anglican “doctrine, discipline, and worship,” just as printed in every single prayer book in every Anglican pew—apparently has not yet occurred to the Episcopal bishops.

And here is the crucial bit. This part has been under-noticed, I think. Though I'm pleased we noticed it at Whitehall. It concerns the House of Bishops at-first-sight bizarre and even absurd insistence that "The meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.” Of course this is where the Episcopal Church defines and constitutes itself as a "constituent member" of the Anglican Communion, and "in communion with the See of Canterbury". The fear of the bishops is of course that if the Anglican Communion suddenly decided that a majority of ECUSA is no longer a "constituent member" of the Communion, or if the See of Canterbury suddenly decided that ECUSA was no longer in communion with him, but that the Network IS, then that would potentially have very bad legal ramifications for the liberals: the conservatives (who remain "constituent members" of the Communion, and who remain "in communion with the See of Canterbury" might suddenly find themselves the sole heirs of the Episcopal Church, as the Episcopal Church has defined and constituted itself. The lunatic ECUSA bishops must not let that happen, so in a move that Jordan Hylden rightly notes to be worthy of Lewis Carroll, the bishops declare that they are the sole arbiters of who is in communion with whom. "You can't kick us out! Only we can kick us out!" What will they do next? Send Rowan Williams an invitation to the Lambeth Conference?


The depths of this episcopal delusion is reminiscent of the scene in Woody Allen's movie Bananas, where the character played by Allen is made the dictator of a small Latin American nation called San Marcos. He decrees that all children under the age of sixteen are now over the age of sixteen, that the national language will be changed to Swedish, and that all citizens are to change their underwear every thirty minutes, and wear it on the outside for easier inspection by the authorities.

In the end, this move is to insure that the ECUSA hierarchy can maintain, come hell or high water, their own legal basis for suing the pants off the orthodox if they try to leave ECUSA with any property. But it just goes to show the absurdities into which base desires can lead you.

Here's what Jordan says about it:

By stating that the meaning of this sentence is determined solely by General Convention, the Episcopal bishops are doing nothing less than claiming that what it means to be Anglican, what it means to be in communion with Canterbury, what it means to be a part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and hold to the historic Christian faith—that all of this is to be decided solely by the democratic vote of clergy and laypeople once every two years in a Marriott hotel convention room, with reference to nothing and nobody. It is breathtaking in its arrogance.

Breathtakingly arrogant indeed. Go read the two pieces for yourself. They're both very good.

does the primates' pastoral scheme violate tec's constitution?

Read the Constitution.

There's no part that talks about primatial jurisdiction, because the very idea of the Presiding Bishop as a primate is a new one, only loosely incorporated in the Constitution. The constitution does give General convention full power to institute a number of alternative pastoral schemes, including bishops for foreign lands, missionary bishops, the creation of new (even non-geographical) dioceses, etc. General convention, or the Executive Council acting when GC is in recess, could certainly participate in any such pastoral scheme it wanted to. There's no clause here that clearly rules out participation in the Primates' scheme, such that the House of Bishops could point to it and say, "This clause precludes our participation."

But how many of the Bishops, do YOU think, took time to look over the Constitution before voting for their statement, hmmmmmmm?

What must the argument have been? - that somehow the Pastoral Council would be able to direct 815? Surely not, for even a cursory reading of the Primates' proposal disproves that. The Council would have nothing to do with anything in TEC except as regards the Primatial Vicar, and except to represent the Primates in negotiating the necessary particulars of this temporary arrangement. What about this felt threatening to the Bishops? Their statement seems, upon reflection, to be based on ignorance of their own canons, fear of primatial intevention, fear of the 'plundering' of the church, and, dare I say, wounded pride. Ignorance, fear, pride, love of money - high motives, all.

does the primates' pastoral scheme violate tec canons?

This is what the House of Bishops claimed in its statement: that the primates' pastoral scheme with their version of the primatial vicar "violates our church law in that it would call for a delegation of primatial authority not permissible under our Canons and a compromise of our autonomy as a Church not permissible under our Constitution. "

Well, here are the relevant passages from the Constitution and Canons, Title I:

Sec. 4 (a) The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate of the Church, and shall:
(1) Be charged with responsibility for leadership in initiating and developing the policy and strategy in the Church and speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies and programs authorized by the General Convention; . . .

(c) The Presiding Bishop shall perform such other functions as shall be prescribed in these Canons; and, to be enabled better to perform such duties and responsibilities, the Presiding Bishop may appoint, to positions established by the Executive Council of General Convention, officers, responsible to the Presiding Bishop, who may delegate such authority as shall seem appropriate.

Whitehallians, tell us what you think - but I don't see anything here that precludes the appointment of a Primatial Vicar, as was first suggested by a group of bishops including former PB Griswold and PB Jefferts Schori, or TEC's participation in the Primates' pastoral scheme. If TEC was willing to find a way forward based on these canons, it could be done. The House of Bishops seems now to be worried that the inclusion of officers of the Primates on the Pastoral Council would put undue power in their hands: but look at the original proposal:

2. The Primatial Vicar would be accountable to the Presiding Bishop and would report to an Advisory Panel that would consist of the designee of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop’s designee, a bishop of The Episcopal Church selected by the petitioning dioceses, and the President of the House of Deputies (or designee).

Compare it to the Primates' proposal:

A Pastoral Council

The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.

A Pastoral Scheme

. . .

􀂃 We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.

. . .

􀂃 in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;

􀂃 the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.

Two points: first, the make-up of this Pastoral Council is not so different from that of the Advisory Panel that was already suggested. TEC gets two out of four seats in the Advisory Panel, and two out of five on the Council. One in either case goes to the ABC, and the only other difference is the presence of Primates or the President of the House of Deputies.

Second point: what the primates ask for is precisely what PB Jefferts Schori suggested! There's no usurping of primatial authority. Their ideas fit neatly within the canons and within Jefferts-Schori's own proposal, with the one exception that they ask that the Primatial Vicar be responsible to the Pastoral Council, not the Advisory Panel. the Vicar's powers still come from the PB as delegated powers, so the Vicar would still be responsible to the PB for their use.

Again I say, if the leaders of TEC wanted to find a way forward under these canons, without dividing the church or driving anyone away, they could. It's not that hard. It might take changing 'responsible to the Council' to 'reporting to the Council' or some such, but negotiation could work all that out. But the House of Bishops clearly isn't interested in negotiation, only in stating who they are - again - as if anyone had any doubt. Maybe if they say it louder this time, the rest of the Communion will finally say, "oh, yes, we see, that's all it is. Ok, do as you please." The fact is our communion partners DO understand us just fine; and they still believe our communion stands in jeopardy.

the house of bishops resolution rejecting the primates' pastoral scheme

Here's the first Mind of the House resolution, and the one which actually accomplishes the rejection.

.

Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Addressed to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church

Resolved, the House of Bishops affirms its desire that The Episcopal Church remain a part of the councils of the Anglican Communion; and

Resolved, the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church; and

Resolved, the House of Bishops believes the proposed Pastoral Scheme of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué of February 19, 2007 would be injurious to The Episcopal Church and urges that the Executive Council decline to participate in it; and

Resolved, the House of Bishops pledges itself to continue to work to find ways of meeting the pastoral concerns of the Primates that are compatible with our own polity and canons.

.

.

First, you've got to wonder why that opening resolved clause is there, about the preamble being interpreted only by General Convention. Though I haven't heard a lot of conservatives push this argument recently, the progressives are still hyper-worried that the preamble might bind us to the Communion, such that we can't do whatever we jolly well please. Which makes one wonder whether independence (in spiritual terms, rebellion) is really more to TEC's taste than Communion or catholicity, and really the root of all of this, from Bp. Robinson onward. What kind of conversation, do you suppose, went on at Camp Allen to necessitate this clause?

.

It's also more than a little immature to say that our words mean precisely what we want them to mean, no more and no less. Words do mean things, and communication would be impossible if words didn't have recognized meanings outside of people's own perspectives. You can't make 'red' mean 'blue'. If you do, you're speaking in code, not straight-forward language. What exactly is the HoB's intention in claiming the sole right of interpretation here? Are they going to transform our preamble into a minefield of code words that mean whatever we want them to mean? Why not just be honest and change the words, rather than giving the same old words brand new, and sometimes contradictory, meanings? That's called 'deception' or 'lying', though I'm sure the HoB just thinks it's being clever.

.

As for the second clause, note that the idea of a Primatial Vicar has not been rejected. Only the Primates' version thereof has been rejected. There's still room here for PB Jefferts-Schori's plan to be effected. Ruth Gledhill is right: this is a game of one-upmanship, a face card to finesse the primates' power. Regardless, as this resolution bears upon TEC's commitment to being catholic, it is to me a frightening indication of, indeed, the mind of the house .

the draft covenant: part II

This is part 2 of an analysis of the Draft Anglican Covenant. Part 1 wondered why the theological idea of communion was treated so shabbily in the Draft, and why the leaders of the Anglican Communion feel the need to depart from communion as a basis for our unity and re-create that unity in a Covenant. This is, I think, the germ and core of the criticism that the whole idea of a Covenant is 'un-Anglican'. Dr. Radner summarizes it this way:

I wonder about the way he [Dr. Franklin] discerns its character in terms of novelty. Certainly, this has been the source of many criticisms of the proposed Covenant in its very identity: it is somehow an innovation within Anglicanism, some have said, an alien element whose introduction will further just the kinds of “curial” re-orderings of the Communion that will undercut the traditional autonomies the buttress Anglican ecclesial life and witness. So how new is the Covenant’s purpose and form in fact? My main argument below is that it is not new at all. It is, rather, who we already are and are called to be more and more.

First, let us note that my criticism is not one of those Dr. Radner mentions. If anything, traditional catholic ecclesiology supports 'curial re-orderings' and does not support 'traditional [Anglican] autonomies', which are, in the case of TEC, being used as excuses for the undue taking of license - indeed, licen-tiousness. If I were merely a pragmatist, I should support the Covenant's innovations because they tighten the central leadership's reins on erring TEC. My side wins, as it were. But we ought not win practical victories at the expense of our Catholicism. Our souls depend upon it.

But in fact, the Covenant does indeed introduce innovations. Dr. Radner's argument - and we could quote him copiously to this point but, for the sake of brevity, without which no one can please bloggers, we'll move on - Dr. Radner's argument is not that critics of the Covenant are simply hallucinating and there is nothing new in the document. Rather, his point is that the innovations that are being proposed stand at the end of a long and authentically Anglican process which began before Gene Robinson, began in fact with the very exportation of the Faith that created the Communion, and which has only recently been recognized for what it is by documents such as the Virginia Report, the Eames Monitoring Group Report of 1988, and the Windsor Report. These documents describe a movement toward something like a Covenant that has been afoot for some time, but we tend to forget the Winsor Report's and the Covenant's continuity with this process because of the events around GC 03, etc. Dr. Radner believes that whatever the Covenant does to our ecclesiology has actually already been done, that it merely reflects developments that have already taken place in our Communion. The Covenant Design Group puts it this way:

What is to be offered in the Covenant is not the invention of a new way of being Anglican, but a fresh restatement and assertion of the faith which we as Anglicans have received, and a commitment to inter-dependent life such as always in theory at least been given recognition.

So there is to be something new, something 'fresh' about the Covenant, something that reflects the latest novelty of Anglican development. I see nothing in the Design Group's report about studying the Fathers or trying to be more catholic. I see nothing in Dr. Radner's comments about studying the Fathers or trying to be more catholic. To the extent the covenant fails thus, it also fails to be an instrument toward greater union with other Churches who claim catholicism. Do they not display the same catholicism we claim? Have they not 'communion' as well as we? Why must our process of definition be pointed only inward, not at all outward to the rest of the Body of Christ? If TEC has such responsibility toward Nigeria, does not the entire Anglican Communion, insofar as it claims to be catholic, have such responsibilities toward Rome and the Patriarchs? Self-exploration inevitably clashes with Christian self-surrender - can we not embody something of the self-effacing, essentials-only spirit of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in the document that is supposed to clarify and define who we are today? The Quadrilateral was borne of long study in the Fathers, and it shows not only in its substance, which is properly reflected in the Draft Covenant, but also in its ecumenical spirit, which is not reflected in the Covenant.

As to the novelty itself which the Covenant introduces, I understand it to be the very coup that was accomplished at the Primates' meeting in Tanzania - namely, that the Primates emerge as the most powerful body of leaders in the Communion, and the only one with any real power. Section 5 of the Covenant acknowledges the Archbishop of Canterbury, but only gives him the power to convene the instruments of Communion; the ABC becomes a QEII-type figurehead. The Lambeth conference exists as a support group for bishops and with the amorphous mission "to guard the faith and unity of the communion" (although I support more 'curial' forms, note that this vague mission could allow Lambeth to go beyond its traditional advisory-only authority). The ACC is relegated to coordinating parts of Anglican ecumenical and missionary work, and who is it that gets carte blanche?

The Primates’ Meeting, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assembles for mutual support and counsel, monitors global developments and works in full collaboration in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.

Ok, ok, maybe this could be less earth-shattering than I've claimed -- that is, if it weren't backed up by this in section 6: Each church commits itself . . .

. . . to seek the guidance of the Instruments of Communion, where there are matters in serious dispute among churches that cannot be resolved by mutual admonition and counsel:
1. by submitting the matter to the Primates Meeting
2. if the Primates believe that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated, they will seek it with the other instruments and their councils
3. finally, on this basis, the Primates will offer guidance and direction.

Who's calling the shots these days? Who exercises real pastoral authority, according to the Covenant? Why isn't our chief pastor, the ABC, given this job?

Dr. Radner is correct. The Covenant only articulates developments that are already afoot. The document does not seek to make us more catholic or bind us more closely to our catholic traditions. It DOES reflect the Global South's distrust of ABC Williams - that's why the ABC loses authority (and Williams is probably happy for this, because he doesn't wear his WWLD bracelet) - and the Global South's distrust of the ACC - that's why it gets shoved aside. It reflects the fact that the Global South primates only trust those instruments of communion that they can control - Lambeth and the Primates' meeting. Dr. Radner is right. The document does indeed reflect recent Communion developments. But they aren't developments toward catholicism.

Don't get me wrong. I like the Primates. I agree with them. I even like most of the Covenant. But I fear we banish one evil while inviting another in. I fear the Anglican masses in the Global South won't care so much about being Catholic as being Evangelical, and will too quickly sacrifice our catholicism to enforce Evangelical faith. Much as I've prayed for decades that TEC would rediscover its Evangelical faith, I don't want the Anglican Communion to lose its catholicism. The process that gives rise to this Covenant at this time in our life as a Communion is itself a symptom of a weakened urge toward catholicism in both TEC and the Global South. A strengthened catholicism would fix all our problems without sacrificing anything essential. A Covenant could do this for us, should do this for us - but this Draft does not.

the draft covenant: part I - this is what's wrong with the covenant

This is part one of a two-part analysis of the Draft Covenant. You can read the entire Covenant here. I also recommend highly Eprhaim Radner's comments and Dr. Poon's response, as posted on Whitehall last week, as well as the Covenant Design Group's report.

I decided to split this post in two because there are really two things going on that are of interest to me - one is genuinely an ecclesiological development, and the other is a pragmatic, political matter. Personally, I don't think these two spheres ought to be separated. The church ought always to stive to sbumit real-world practicalities to God's call; we ought ever and always to be expressing in our 'real' world the greater realities of the Spirit. Catholicism IS one of those realities. Ours ought always to be getting purer. Where we divorce the spiritual reality of catholicism from the practical realities of human institutions, we deny the miracle of the Church and pave the way for corruption and innovation, heresy and schism -- 'detestable enormities', all.

But the leaders of the Communion don't seem to see it that way. So the major ecclesiological innovation in the Covenant is tucked away, mid paragraph, mid sentence, barely even more than a reference or implication - not through any practice of deceit, I feel sure, but simply through neglect, which is worse. The first part of this post, below, will be dedicated to fleshing that innovation out. But because Dr. Radner and others have so vehemently denied that there exists any ecclesiological innovation in the Covenant, the second part of this post will be dedicated to proving, from the Design Group report, Dr. Radner's comments on the formative impulses of the document, and the Covenant itself, that there is, in fact, an ecclesiological innovation in the Covenant. And yes, for all of you who thought you've heard me imply it, here at anglicancatholic.blogspot.com, 'innovation' IS generally a dirty word. At least when it comes to the Church and its faith once received.

So the paragraph in question comes in the 5th section, on "Our Unity and Common Life" and reads thus:

Of these four Instruments of Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, with whose See Anglicans have historically been in communion, is accorded a primacy of honour and respect as first amongst equals (primus inter pares). He calls the Lambeth Conference, and Primates’ Meeting, and is President of the Anglican Consultative Council.

The first sentence here is one of only two times in the document the word 'communion' has real theological content (the other time it refers to sharing the same Eucharist) and is not just the name of the particular group of churches we're talking about. What's wrong with this, despite the proclamation right at the beginning that we "uphold and act in continuity and consistency with the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition . . . ", is that the theological concept of communion, born of the blood and sweat of the Church Fathers, is nowhere mentioned as the foundation for our unity or identity. It only appears here, noted as an historical fact that explicitly has nothing to do with what the Covenant is trying to accomplish. Historically, we've been in communion with Canterbury, but today we Covenant to make that relationship obsolete, at least on the most foundational level of our identity. It's in our past, not our future.

The future of the Anglican 'Communion' seems to be to become the 'Anglican Covenant Group of Churches', an arrangement which may bear some strucutral similarities and historical continuities to an actual communion of Churches but may not be one in actuality.

Let me be clear that the creation of this kind of covenant does not, I think, necessarily destroy the communion we share already as Anglican Churches in communion with Canterbury. It could even, for all practical purposes, enhance our experience of that communion by more clearly articulating our understanding of God's expectations for ourselves and our communion partners, so long as we are clear that the Covenant does not create or define the relationship of communion, but only clarify it to help out infirmities (ahem, TEC). And by all means, let the miracle of communion be the foundaton we build upon, not the stone which the builders rejected.

jim naughton's response to canon harmon's response to jim naughton: this is absurd

Read Naughton's response in its entirety here. Read Canon Harmon's piece, to which Naughton is responding, here. Essentially Naughton is asserting that the Dar es Salaam Communique was made intentionally ambiguous in order to preserve the "status quo" (Naughton's phrase) in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

Naughton avers:

My own sense... is that ambiguous language is employed deliberately by those who perfect that [sic] final versions of these documents so that a “unanimous statement” can be released that keeps the Communion together long enough to argue another day.

....

Obviously, if Williams expects us to ban blessings (and then police the ban), Bishop Jefferts Schori will have a much harder time persuading our Church to accept the Primates’ recommendations than if Williams simply expects us to maintain what is essentially the status quo.

Good grief. This is patently absurd. As though ambiguity in the service of disagreement (what liberals often and speciously call "Anglican comprehensiveness") were the raison d'être of the Church. If the Communion exists so that the world can see our disagreement and disunity, then the sooner it falls apart the better. Naughton would do well to remember the Primates' statement in paragraph 21 of the Communique:

However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

Compare the nonsensical celebration of ambiguity and argument with our Lord's own prayer in John 17, where he explicitly links his gift of unity to truth in Apostolic doctrine in such a way that the world may see and be compelled by it. If ECUSA ambiguity and the disunity it fosters are so compelling, then why are we leaking members like a sieve in the face of enormous increases in the secular population? And don't cite horse hockey, as Schori has attempted to do, about our comparatively low birth rates. The Lord didn't bestow his unity so that we could maintain ourselves (even this we can't seem to manage), but so that we could bring in those outside the economy of salvation, the so-called "unchurched".

People tempted to deceive themselves into thinking that the Communique means to allow ECUSA to continue its practices which are at variance with Christian teaching as received by the Communion (what Naughton calls "the status quo") would do well to ask themselves 1) whether the Communion's visible unity is in jeopardy, and if so 2) why its in jeopardy. If they really believe that ECUSA can continue tacitly authorized practices at odds with the Communion's doctrine without deepening this crisis, they are delusional.

not encouraging

In light of the Dar es Salaam Communique's request that all civil litigation between and among ECUSA entities be halted because it is fundamentally anti-Christian, the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor, David Booth Beers, has responded with clarity to attorneys asking whether ECUSA's suits against dissenting parishes in Virginia would, in fact, cease:

[Episcopal News Service] Lawyers for the Episcopal Church have told two attorneys representing some of the 11 Diocese of Virginia congregations involved in a legal dispute over possession of church property that "there is no basis at this time" to put that litigation on hold.

....

In their February 26 reply, David Booth Beers, chancellor to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and his colleague Heather H. Anderson, first reminded the two attorneys that the Anglican Communion is a federation and not a "juridical or legislative body."

Thus, they wrote, it "has no legal authority over the affairs of its members."

Indeed. I don't, however, think anyone was suggesting that the Communion does have any legal authrotiy over the affairs of its members. On the other hand, the Primates do have moral and doctrinal authority. Whether ECUSA recognizes that fact is another matter. The actual question being put to Schori, Beers, et al., was: Are you and your clients going to do what is right? Is your behavior in the civil arena going to be in accordance with God's law?

Clearly not. But thanks for being clear.

Read it all at Stand Firm.

presiding bishop briefs 815 staff on the primates' meeting

From ENS here.

This is, to my mind, most remarkable. For all those of us who heard the Mother Jesus sermon after the PB's election and who have since despaired of any moderation in her hard-charging, MDG-espousing, let's-just-forget-the-theology-and-get-on-with-the-[progressive]-mission persona, this briefing represents a huge turnaround for PB Schori. She sounds meek, tired, submissive, especially in the MP3 version available here from ENS; convinced, as perhaps PB Griswold may have been before her (though we're still not quite sure) that communion with Canterbury may indeed trump her gospel of radical inclusion. She's on the brink of becoming a Rowan Williams, at least temporarily, willing to hide her ideals for the sake of Anglican unity. Here are the most significant statements:

She told the gathering that the Episcopal Church is called to ensure that the conversation about the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church continues in the Communion.
“It is part of our mission as a church,” she said. “This conversation that has been going on for at least 40 years is not going away. God keeps bringing it back to us.”
Jefferts Schori said that she understands that some people feel that the primates’ recommendations are a “hard and bitter pill for many of us to talk about swallowing.” But, she said, worldwide attitudes about the inclusion of gay and lesbian people are changing and “I don’t expect that to end.”
“We’re being asked to pause in the journey. We are not being asked to go back,” she said. “Time and history are with this Church.”

She wants us to stay at the table?! Knuckle under to the primates for now, and hope that the Lambeth 1.10 listening process will eventually enable TEC to convert the entire Communion to our way of thinking? The progressives won't be happy with this. Prophetic victory was in their grasp, and has their champion given up?

Jefferts Schori said “I ache for the pain that this communiqué is causing to people in our own church who see issues of justice as absolutely central, because I share that view. I also hunger for a vision of the world where people with vastly different opinions can sit at the same table and worship at the same table because I think that eventually that is how all of us are converted.”
She said that her understanding of the Body of Christ is that “none of us can say that we have no need of you.” She acknowledged that “we don’t always like the people God gives us.”

It sounds like conversion is more important to her than the prophetic stand of "those who see issues of justice as absolutely central." Even the rhetoric of placement of these two clauses belies her: traditionally the 'clincher' comes last -- that the 'issues of justice' would come before the sitting at the table with those we don't like shows that she holds the latter more closely. What happened in Tanzania to cause this about-face? Was she surprised at the vigor of opposition to TEC's innovations? Or did someone get to her with gentleness and personal acceptance? Has she herself been 'converted'?

“We have a very, very long way to go in raising awareness so that reason can become an equal partner in the discussion with scripture and tradition,” she said. “I think that that is one of the gifts that this church has to give to the world.”

Heh heh. Is THAT what Hooker meant when he wrote, “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14)." (More here).

“The reality, I believe, is that the Archbishop of Canterbury will respect whatever the primates decide, whether or not that accurately reflects the polity of the Anglican Communion,” Jefferts Schori said.

I ask again, who's pulling the strings in the Communion these days? I'm beginning to think there was a major revolution in Tanzania. 'Course, it was a long time in coming.

“I don’t know if our church is ready to say to the rest of the Communion what’s been asked of us. I don’t know that,” she said. “I do know that if we’re removed from a place where we can speak to the rest of the Communion, we’re going to lose that advantage of being there at the table to challenge views like that.”

...

During a question-and-answer session following her statement, Jefferts Schori said that the primates’ plan for a primatial vicar is similar to one she and other bishops proposed last November—with the addition of an accompanying supervisory pastoral council. “What is different is a structure of accountability,” she said, but she called that structure “manageable,” noting that she would appoint some of the council’s members and must consent to the choice of the vicar. She said that a “saving grace” of the primatial vicar proposal is that it would eventually end the incursion of other primates into the Episcopal Church.

She rolled over much faster on this one than Griswold would have. It sounds like she's swallowed the Primates' plan whole hog, while her own will be forgotten. This is a new administration, folks.

She said that the House of Bishops can answer the requests made by the primates. . . . While the bishops can indeed agree to do those things, Jefferts Schori said, “whether they have the will to do that, I don’t know.” Very few of the bishops are interested in acting “unilaterally,” she added.

So let us hear no blogger vainly babble that the Primates have asked the HoB to do something it doesn't have the ability to do. Even our own PB has admitted it.

“I know where my heart lies and it’s in a divided place,” she said, explaining that she hungers to affirm the place of gays and lesbians in the church and she hungers to “see this body reconciled.”
“In my better moments, I firmly hope and pray that these things are not diametrically opposed.”

The PB we elected in June of 06 was not so conflicted. Something has happened. Something has changed in her heart and mind. She's now more tightly bound to the Anglican Communion than she seemed before, and less to the agenda of radical inclusion. Which will win out in the end? God only knows. But regardless, a wonder has been worked in Tanzania, a mountain moved.

on the primates' key recommendations

For the full Communique and Recommendations, read here.

First, note that their proposal is for "an an interim response . . . in the period until the Covenant is secured." (paragraph 30) It is the Covenant that they hope will ultimately solve this problem and give the Communion a way to handle such problems again if they ever arise. It remains to be seen whether the Covenant design process can come up with a document that reliably is able to do that.

"The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council. "

This Pastoral Council acts on behalf of the primates, not on behalf of the ABC. Who's calling the shots in the Communion these days? Clearly, the primates are. I think ABC Williams abdicated the traditional role of ABC (WWLD - What would Laud do?) when he waffled on Gene Robinson. Williams has not exercised the authority he could have, so the Primates have filled the gap. Or restored the breach. In this climate of rapid change in the ecclesiastical structures of the Communion, I lament (as Whitehall has heard me do before) that so little appeal has been made to the Fathers. We began morphing with the Virginia report, but GC03 and the Windsor Report have accelerated and even directed the metamorphoses. Whatever happens, the Anglican Communion in 2010 will not look, structurally, anything like it did at the turn of the 19th century. These are historic years.

The Primates recommend "the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles”, or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme; in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council; the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.

So this Pastoral Scheme would apply only to the Camp Allen bishops, and only at a diocesan level (so far). Provision could be made for AMiA and other groups who wish to be included. Note who nominates the PV - NOT the PB, nor the ABC, but the Camp Allen Bishops themselves. This is clearly NOT what PB Schori had in mind when she first suggested it. She and the other TEC bishops who worked on the proposal wanted the appointment to be made by the PB in consultation with the ABC, and the Primatial Vicar to be responsible to the PB only. No primates involved. Again I ask, who's pulling the strings in the Communion these days?

"Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above."

So would TEC be better off with many small interventions or one big one? The interven-ers are only interested in what works - one scheme is as good as another, if the people are getting legitimate pastoral care. As far as the primates are concerned, if TEC doesn't like a million small interventions, they can choose one big one; but intevention there will be, because faithful people are crying out for deliverance. You could say it's a matter of social justice.

"In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church 1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

What's most important about these two requests is, I think, that the HoB is not being asked to do anything it can't do. The primates are not misunderstanding American polity. Instead, they're doing a remarkable job of translating American polity into answers that other provinces with other polities can accept. What they're asking is for the HoB to 1. bind their own conduct by resolution of their own house; and 2. give their considered interpretation, as a house, of Resolution B033. If the former happens, will bishops who break their word be liable for presentment? They should be, but I doubt our PB will prosecute. As regards the latter, the primates want to know what TEC's intention is, and they're asking the HoB to interpret an ambiguous resolution. Do the American bishops believe that B033 is Windsor Compliant? They're not asking the bishops to control the consent votes of their own standing committees or undermine the prerogatives of the HoDep. They're asking for an interpretaton, hoping for a show of good-faith. The reason the primates asked the HoB for this is that that's the traditional catholic synod that all the other Anglican polities recognize. A synod is supposed to be made up of bishops, not of lay or clergy. The fact that TEC allows lay and clergy to participate is cute, but we've got to translate their words into a traditional, catholic ecclesiological language that can be understood everywhere.

"The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion."

This is the threat clause. The details will be spelled out in the Covenant design process. As for timing, it seems like the Primates want all the ducks in a row in time for Lambeth. They seem to be willing to relenquish the power they've taken up for Lambeth, but not for the ABC. My, how things have changed. I think the Primates as a rule hold a much more catholic ecclesiology than we in TEC do, or many at Lambeth Palace do, I think -- namely, that local synods report to ecumenical councils -- the Anglican version of which is provincial synods reporting to Lambeth. The problem is that Lambeth has always been clear that it exercises only advisory authority and does NOT constitute a church council, nor can it decree with authority in matters of doctrine. That's why even Lambeth 1.10 is only a statement of the mind of the Communion, not a binding doctrinal law. To my mind, all these are weaknesses that make us less catholic as a communion than we ought to be. But they are traditional. Sigh.

"The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations."

Easy for them to say. What would this look like on the ground in, say, Connecticut? They've asked a lot of the bishops themselves, because someone like Bp. Smith of CT would have to be content to not visit the grounds of his dissenting parishes, not enforce licenses to minister, not enforce his own inhibitions, not to confirm or ordain; in short, let those impertinent 6 parishes go on thumbing their noses at him in the buildings he thinks he owns until the Covenant gets OK'd sometime after Lambeth 08 + an additional round of consultation + the ACC's 14th meeting. You'd have parishes temporarily without Episcopal oversight, waiting until the Primatial Vicar can send someone to see them and confirm their litte ones. From which parishes do you ask assessment? Which parishes have the right to join in diocesan convention? Are those parishes in or out of communion with their local diocesan? Who has responsibility to fill vacancies if a dissenting rector dies or retires? In short, this is a request to temporarily send our tightly-enforced local diocesan structure into a spiral of chaos until the Covenant is finished and ratified. Is it worth it for Christian charity?

Or maybe it's the dissenting parishes that need to knuckle under and submit, temporarily, to their bishops. But would those bishops respect the identity of their formerly-dissenting parishes? They might not attack property, but is parish income 'property'? Doesn't the myth of the Dennis Canon give all parish property to the diocese? Are the primates making a ruling on the Dennis Canon? The primates are asking us to think of parishes as the owners of their property, and the parish/property unit to be transferrable -- but that's not the way our canons describe things. This is where I would like to see a perfect world's 815 do some spade-work on fitting the Primates' recommendations into our canons. I suppose the Pastoral Council is supposed to do that.

All you legal-beagle Whitehallies, what's the process in the American legal system to simply drop a case like this? If a dissenting parish and an attacking bishop were to take this call seriously, who should drop their charges first?

And here's another interesting thought. The two parishes seceding from the diocese of Pittsburgh would, apparently, come under the jurisdiction of the Primatial Vicar - who is very likely to be Bishop Duncan, currently of Pittsburgh! Even if it's not him, would they be willing to accept the same Primatial Vicar as, say, the Virginia cluster?

And here's something even more interesting: During this controversy, it has been noted that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church was not, originally, supposed to be a primate. That function was abrogated only recently, and only because TEC needed someone to represent us among the other primates, and the PB was the natural choice. If we carry this reasoning out, then a Primatial Vicar would actually be the only acting Primate for American Anglicans and therefore our sole primatial representative in the Communion.

All told, I think this document presents more of a challenge to TEC than to the intervening foreign archbishops. And that's as it should be.

an interesting / good analysis of dar es salaam

Above all, it was Williams’ goal to maintain the catholic substance of Anglicanism while avoiding schism. On the one hand, Williams had to convince Anglican evangelicals to remain in a church that lacks the confessional clarity and simplicity of mainstream evangelicalism—even though evangelicals tend to discount the value of church unity if it appears to cut against scriptural truth. On the other hand, Williams had to convince Anglican liberals to discipline an American church with which they had much in common—even though liberals tend to discount both scriptural truth and church unity if it seems to cut against progressive goals....

....

It has been a long road, and much uncertainty lies ahead. But what uncertainty remains is principally related to the decisions now facing the Episcopal Church. As for the Anglican Communion, its choice has been made. Years from now, it may well be that we will look upon this week as a crucial turning-point in Anglican history, crucial as anything since the English Reformation. For the Anglican Communion has finally decided to live up to its name: a global communion of churches, diverse yet united by a common faith and mutual hope, seeking together the mind of Christ, living humbly and prayerfully under the authority of Scripture. So may it remain.


From First Things via Stand Firm via Texanglican. I encourage you to read the whole thing. (Go to First Things for the purpose.)

what kendall harmon would have said on the newshour if he'd had time...

From the interview with Kendall Harmon and Susan Russell about the Primates' Communique on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Transcript here. In no way do I mean to imply that Kendall Harmon's responses were inadequate. I think he did a great job. I'm just taking a little more focused look at what Russell says because I think she displays concisely every fallacy behind the progressives' thinking.

.

MARGARET WARNER: Reverend Russell, do you see it as that serious a challenge, that really the American Episcopal Church is now, quote, "in the penalty box"?

REV. SUSAN RUSSELL, President, Integrity USA: I don't know if I'd use that analogy, but I agree we are in a very serious time in the church. From my perspective, the American Episcopal Church has now been very strategically and very intentionally painted into a corner by those in the American church who have been advocating for a schism for many years.

And we're now faced with what I would call a Sophie's choice of having to choose our vision of the inclusive gospel over our inclusion in the communion. It's a profoundly un-Anglican way to make decisions, given that historically we have been a people of God who have not required common belief in order to be in communion with each other.

So I think the greater challenge we face has much less to do with gay and lesbian people or bishops or blessings, but how we're going to be church together. I think that is really under attack by the radical religious right, who is willing to split this church if they can't recreate it in their own image.

.

Ok, where do we start? First, I think she's right. The primates are acting politically, not just pastorally, because that's how stuff actually gets done in human institutions. Yes, this is the culmination of a lot of political maneuvering by Americans who want not schism but permanently repaired relations with Anglicans worldwide (as well as historical orthodoxy). It so happens that TEC's innovations have created the possibility of schism, so schism from the schismatics is what may be needed for these American faithful. And let's not forget that in all of these political machinations, TEC had its representatives. At no point has any of the institutions of communion failed to lend an open ear to TEC. In fact, at several points TEC has been invited to make its case as well as it possibly can. If we've failed in that, let's not blame some vast (and by 'vast' we mean 'tiny, politically disenfranchised for 40 years') right wing conspiracy -- let's fess up to our own doings, here. Next, tell the Non-Jurors that it's 'un-Anglican' to force a choice between ideals and communion. What about the oaths of conformity that were required of all English clergy in the Reformation? Tell that to the dioceses within TEC who still don't ordain women, despite decades of pressure -- are their rights to their own opinion being respected? Next, what Christian group in the entire history of the Church has ever 'not required common belief'? We have creeds for that sort of thing. What Kendall Harmon did say here was perfect: the issue is about essentials vs. inessentials. Some differences of opinion are acceptable; others aren't. Next, let's stop all this 'create the church in its own image' stuff. What does it really mean? It's the hint of a biblical allusion but doesn't actually refer to any biblical concept. The church is never said to be made in God's image. If having a strong ideal and pushing for it to be accepted is 'making the church in your own image', then American conservatives aren't the only ones doing that. Russell herself calls it 'leadership' later on in this interview.

.

MARGARET WARNER: And yet, Reverend Russell, you said that you think the idea of not being able to tolerate these differences is somehow in conflict with what you said was the essential nature of the Anglican Communion. Explain what you meant.

REV. SUSAN RUSSELL: Well, absolutely. I mean, if we look at the historic roots of who we are as Anglicans, we have the same DNA. We come from the Church of England, which was formed out of the crucible of the English Reformation, and had at one point to decide whether it was going to be Catholic or whether it was going to be Protestant.
At a time when people were burned at the stake over such significant and foundational theological divide, the Anglican Church and the Church of England found a way to be both. And that's the heritage we've carried up until now. . .

.

Rev. Russell forgets that it was we Anglicans who were burning people at the stake for being Catholic, and vice versa. All this only stopped after the Glorious Revolution in 1688, when English society had simply run out of energy for any more revolutions or heretic-burnings. You might as well look at Good Archbishop Laud's kick-off of the English Civil War over the Scottish prayer book, and say that it's essentially Anglican to start wars over liturgical standardization. Is not this, also, the heritage we've carried up until now?

.

[Rev. Russell continues] . . . The fact is, the American church does hold a minority opinion on the blessing of same-sex unions and the full inclusion of all the baptized in the body of Christ. We know we maintain a minority opinion, but we maintain that that minority opinion is a leadership opinion, in much the same way that we've held a minority opinion on whether or not women should be bishops or women should be priests.
Historically, the rest of the communion has come along on that issue. We believe that lives lived in holiness, and fidelity, and mutual respect transcends the orientation of the people involved in the relationship. We believe God blesses those relationships, and so should the church.

.

The full inclusion of all the baptized in the body of Christ -- St. Paul didn't go for that. That's what excommunication is all about. If you support this kind of 'full inclusion', you've got to come up with some workable model for Christian discipline. good luck. And what Russell calls 'leadership' here, the Africans call 'imperialism'. That's part of our English heritage, too. And I don't know how you define a life lived in holiness if not by the scripture and Christian tradition. Those definitions don't allow homosexual activity to be defined as a holy behavior. If you want to do that yourself, fine, but you've got to explian why God has to honor your definition of a holy life.

.

MARGARET WARNER: May I ask you, Reverend Russell -- let me ask you, just as a practical matter, speaking of deciding, there's little more than seven months away before this deadline. How will the Episcopal Church of the U.S. go about making this decision, how to respond?

REV. SUSAN RUSSELL: Well, that's a very important question, but I do want to respond quickly to the idea that we are acting unilaterally. The American church has never asked the Church of Nigeria or Uganda or Rwanda or any of our other Anglican brother and sister churches to come along with us on our vision for where the church should be.
All we've asked to have is our understandings of holy scripture and how we live that out respected.

.

If what we are has no bearing on what the Nigerian Anglican church is, how can we say we're linked in communion? Rev. Russell forgets that where we go, the body goes, because we are members of the body. Unless we get cut off. Which might happen.

+mark sisk, bishop of new york, on the dar es salaam communique

Well, except the Archbishop of Canterbury now seems as focused on sex as anyone.

[Bishop Mark Sisk] I think the confusion is a result of the primates meeting. I believe that what was desired was a statement that we were wrong to confirm Gene Robinson, the gay bishop of New Hampshire and that we will never do it again. And I do not believe that the majority of [American] bishops believe that. I do believe that they did not adequately confer [with the Anglican Church and also with each other], and that’s what they apologized for. God is working in the community to help us understand that gay and lesbian people can be called to have any role within our community. My view is that [the primates] have in fact upped the ante. I think that what they’re wanting is an affirmation that we will never do this again. My own guess is that we would not respond positively to that request.

It seems like the Episcopal Church is being forced to choose between its gay and lesbian members and its membership in the Anglican Communion.

[Bishop Mark Sisk] The challenge is how far are we prepared to go in working with the communion and squaring that against the relationships we have in our community with members who are gay and lesbian. I would like to think that the communion needs to hear the voice of the Episcopal Church as well. I am prepared to work quite hard to maintain connections in the communion, but if it comes to having to choose between the communion and abandoning my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters—much as I value the Anglican community, I think they will be the losers.

From Newsweek via Titusonenine (emphasis Fr WB's).

The sad irony, of course, is that the Episcopal Church has abandoned our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, by telling them that the destructive patterns of behavior to which they are predisposed, are in fact wholesome and conducive of spiritual health. This is a lie that puts souls in grave danger. The orthodox want nothing but for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to flourish. We want for them reconciliation, peace, and all that God has promised through Christ for his sons and daughters. We want for them that the sun of righteousness should rise with healing in its wings; that they should go forth leaping like calves from the stall (Malachi 4.2).

Saint Anthony the Great said in the third century: "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us'."

Indeed. Now is that time. Christ, have mercy.

the dar es salaam communique

Here is my very short response to the Dar Es Salaam communique, which I read for the first time on a plane this afternoon: it is good. The media was buzzing with wild predictions before the meeting, and as it progressed. The sheer volume and wildness of the coverage had me starting to think wild thoughts too, I confess. But in the end this fact remained: there is at this moment no mechanism for the disciplining of the Episcopal Church the way that many would like for it to be disciplined. Such a mechanism will be embodied (presumably) in the proposed Covenant, the outlines of which have not been made public.

I would have liked to have seen something more heavy-handed from the Primates' (such as a request that ECUSA withdraw from the Instruments of Communion until the Covenant is ready to be ratified), but what we have is good. It is clear-cut and honest; it proposes hard-and-fast deadlines and sets out a concrete and measurable plan which allows ad-hoc structures (such as AMiA) to remain in place, and proposes a concrete protocol allowing alternative oversight to those who cannot in conscience accept the episcopal / primatial ministry of ECUSA's Presiding Bishop. And perhaps above all: the communique is unanimous. I cannot stress how important that fact is. We will have to wait for these things to pan out, which is a challenge, but I believe this communique proposes a realistic scheme within which the orthodox will have the space we need to wait for a final solution (an unfortunate phrase) to be worked out -- one that gives meaning to the Anglican "bonds of affection" which ECUSA was doing its best to show to be meaningless.

I urge everyone to take time to read the whole thing very carefully.

UPDATE: I guess a draft version of the Covenant has been made public after all. Its gotten lost in the other news.

paragraph 33

Here is paragraph 33 from the Primates' communique from Tanzania:

33. Third, the Presiding Bishop has reminded us that in The Episcopal Church there are those who have lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain of our Provinces because they fear that they are all too ready to undermine or subvert the polity of The Episcopal Church. In their view, there is an urgent need to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report and to bring an end to all interventions.

This is like a group of school-yard bullies who have a nice little system of exploitation going and who are worried the whole apple-cart might be upset if the headmaster happens by and puts a stop to it. You see the same attitude in a child that's been caught doing something he knows he oughtn't and gets angry at his parent for catching him. The only reason TEC progressives are worried our polity is being 'undermined' is because they know that the goal of those interventions is to strip them of their 'prophetic' victory over what they consider to be outdated and oppressive sexual mores. If they were really concerned about being authentically Anglican and authentically Episcopalian ABOVE being sexually progressive, they'd be more skeptical of their own innovations, and more willing to reign in their impulses toward progressive sexuality simply because upsetting the rest of the Communion is bad form. If TEC were primarily interested in authentically being what we always have been, we wouldn't have ordained women OR consecrated Bp. Robinson OR had any problem whatsoever passing Windsor-compliant resolutions at GC06. This paragraph gives evidence of PB Schori's dangerous shell game. Find the real motive. Is it under here? Sometimes I wonder whether the progressives themselves have a clear idea of what's going on.