The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon’s full statement is available at Anglican Communion News Service. An excerpt:

Last Thursday I sent letters to members of the Inter Anglican ecumenical dialogues who are from the Episcopal Church informing them that their membership of these dialogues has been discontinued. In doing so I want to emphasise again as I did in those letters the exceptional service of each and every person to that important work and to acknowledge without exception the enormous contribution each person has made.

I have also written to the person from the Episcopal Church who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), withdrawing that person’s membership and inviting her to serve as a Consultant to that body.

I have written to the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada to ask whether its General Synod or House of Bishops has formally adopted policies that breach the second moratorium in the Windsor Report, authorising public rites of same-sex blessing.

At the same time I have written to the Primate of the Southern Cone, whose interventions in other provinces are referred to in the Windsor Continuation Group Report, asking him for clarification as to the current state of his interventions into other provinces.

View the original post

It will continue to be interesting how this is spun. But the fact remains that it is something - not further talk.

How big a something will be debated.

A few points I ponder:

- Ecumenism and liberalism go together in my head like peanut butter and jelly. Dis-inviting TEC from Inter Anglican ecumenical dialogues is significant.

- Might not a judge in a current court case ask the PB, “Which is it - hierarchical or parish-based?”

- There is now real pressure on international Anglican bodies to “divest” themselves from official involvement in North America.

- Why does the ABC continue to refuse to do something to directly assist parishes and diocese in TEC that are at best marginalized and at worst persecuted?

An excellent point Charlie:

Why does the ABC continue to refuse to do something to directly assist parishes and diocese in TEC that are at best marginalized and at worst persecuted?

And not just for the aid and succor of the marginalized, but also to give guidance to this group.  Had Rowan Williams taken the step 4-5 years ago of establishing some sort of extra-Provincial protectorate for ex-TEC refugees in North America, then he and some more Communion-minded leaders could have had a much greater influence in the development of the non-TEC Anglicans in North America.  But by not doing anything in this area, Rowan has surrendered the leadership of this group to those that now lead the ACNA and it will be very difficult to rein in (witness the AMiA debacle).  By repeatedly not taking action, Rowan has increased the radicalism of any future actions he will need to take in order to keep the Anglican Communion from fragmenting (if indeed such an outcome is still possible).

I think this is complicated. I don’t think +Rowan grasped the zealotry of the TEC left Establishment and the implications of +Katharine’s election or that he was entirely comfortable with the stridency of the orthodox leadership in the US.

Tony:  I agree with you that Rowan badly misread the situation in North America.  I think that this speaks to his leadership (a good leader should have good intelligence sources and heed those sources), and I think is why many conservatives think he is secretly in league with TECs’ liberals (which I think is ridiculous).  Rowan believed until very recently (I think) that his mild statements of displeasure without any tangible consequences would be sufficient for TEC’s “moderate liberal” bishops to more or less hold the line for now on the moratoria.  And so long as TEC more or less held on the moratoria, Rowan could marginalize the GAFCON/ACNA conservatives.

What has happened is that the brutality of KJS and her party (i.e. in the blatantly uncanonical purging in the HoB, and in various other threats even to “moderate liberal” bishops) has caused TEC’s “moderate liberal” bishops to fear KJS and her party more than Rowan’s mild displeasure.  It is my belief that KJS and her allies in TEC have sought, as part of their political strategy, to consistently undermine Rowan Williams and make him appear as impotent.  Unfortunately (due to his misreading of things), Rowan has played right into this strategy.  The consequence of this has been that Rowan no longer has any influence in TEC’s HoB.  This has led to TEC speeding towards the cliff with the accelerator full on.

I also would agree that Rowan isn’t all that comfortable with the stridency of the conservative leadership in the AMiA and ACNA.  Heck, I am a conservative, and I’m not all that comfortable with much of the ACNA’s and AMiA’s leadership.  While I do have tremendous respect for many of its leaders, I nevertheless remain very ambivalent about many aspects of the North American conservative leadership.  This strained relationship is complicated by two further issues:  1) As I pointed out above, many conservative leaders see Rowan as being a lackey of KJS and so don’t trust him at all; and 2) much of the conservative leadership is very skeptical of the value of a Canterbury connection while at the same time Rowan sees the unilateral response by GAFCON/ACNA as deeply in violation of catholic order.

James: The moderate liberal bishops have been scared stiff that they would be identified with the radical right.  Now that group has gone, they are fast becoming TEC’s right wing. 

On another subject it is high time we heard from the Communion Partners’ Bishops on this developing crisis.

Another couple of quotes from the letter:

Last Thursday I sent letters to members of the Inter Anglican ecumenical dialogues who are from the Episcopal Church informing them that their membership of these dialogues has been discontinued. ....
I have also written to the person from the Episcopal Church who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), withdrawing that person’s membership…

It wasn’t clear to me from the ABC’s letter whether TEC members would be asked to step down, or actually removed from their positions. Looks like it’s the latter.

Looking forward, there are two questions in this area which I would like to see addressed: One is the relationship between the actions of a bishop or of a diocese and the responsibilities of a province for those actions – this issue is referred to in the Windsor Continuation Group Report para 48.

Paragraph 48 of he WCG Report could be paraphrased “if a bishop does something that impairs communion, should the consequences fall on that bishop only, or on the whole province?” My followup question is, “if the consequences fall on the province, does that include bishops, if any, who have repudiated the communion-impairing actions of their fellow-bishops?”, specifically, would the consequences resulting from the HOB’s consent to the election of Mary Glasspool, and the action of the bishops who consecrated her, fall on the Communion Partner bishops as well?

Secondly, to ask the question of whether maintaining within the fellowship of one’s Provincial House of Bishops, a bishop who is exercising episcopal ministry in another province without the expressed permission of that province or the local bishop, constitutes an intervention and is therefore a breach of the third moratorium.

This is the same question that was raised here on another thread.

Karen:  I think that both of Kearon’s concluding questions that you mention basically seek to ask the following:  “At what point does a Province become responsible for not disciplining itself internally?”  And it sort of gets to acting in good faith.

So, if TEC or ACoC says at the national level “we don’t authorize SSB’s” but then all of the local dioceses do, and if the national leadership is fully supportive of this development, then should they be free and clear?  Or if the GAFCON Provinces see this, and say “okay, we’ll restructure things.  We will immediately remove all official positions on overseas bishops, but we will either let those overseas bishops sit in our HoB or we will have just one of our bishops be the “overseas supervisor”, should they be free and clear?

It is my opinion that things need to be looked at on a case-by-case situation.  If the Province has made due diligence to try to get the offending bishop or diocese to stop violating the moratoria and has taken steps to isolate that bishop or diocese, then the discipline should not fall on the Province as a whole, but on the specific diocese.  If the Province hasn’t done this, then the punishment should fall on the Province as a whole, BUT dioceses which clearly differentiate themselves from the Provincial action should be welcomed, but only in their individual capacities, not as part of the offending Province.

So, in the case of Canada - there is some bad faith winking and nodding going on in General Synod right now.  They are deliberately not authorizing SSB’s there (so they can claim they haven’t done so nationally) but several dioceses are authorizing SSB’s openly and the national church is doing nothing to stop them, but are actually clearly in support of such action.  Canada should not be able to get away with such trickery.  The whole Province should come under discipline.

Let’s switch now to TEC.  TEC chose to approve and consecrate Glasspool, and so TEC as a whole should come under discipline.  But if the Communion Partners bishops and dioceses publicly differentiate and refuse to recognize Glasspool, then those dioceses should be welcome to participate in the AC, but NOT in their capacity as members of TEC, but rather as “extra-provincial” entities.

On another subject it is high time we heard from the Communion Partners’ Bishops on this developing crisis.

Again, the silence simply underscores a point I made in a previous post—Communion Partner’s is a non-starter as a realistic means of connecting to the broader Communion.  Conservatives remaining in TEC are going to be forced to self-differentiate without the benefit of an effectual official representative body, I’m afraid.  And as one who is fully committed to remaining in TEC, we need to be willing to accept the discipline of the whole Province—not expecting any special treatment—just as Jeremiah remained in Jerusalem when Babylon invaded.  It is a worthy witness to maintain.

Lenny,

I agree that those of us committed to remaining with TEC should be willing to “go into exile” with the rest of the “nation.” So no, we should not *expect* special treatment. But we can ask!

I think that the implication is that while we wait, we “seek the welfare of the city” (I think it is noteworthy that what God promises the exiles when He says “the plans I have for for you” are things that he wants them to have *now* in exile, not just after the return. So indeed there is “worthy witness” to be done!

And then I think of the story of Esther - she uses her position to protect her people (at great personal risk but also with great wisdom, faith, and cleverness). I think this opens the door for us to seek mercy from God in the form of a “protectorate” from Canterbury.

As counterfactuals go, this is a fun one: What if Canterbury HAD early on offered to set up a real sanctuary for parishes and diocese in TEC? What if TEC said, “no?” What if the said, “yes?”

Sorry! I accidentally hit Send too soon.   Mods please delete—I don’t know how.

Charlie Clauss - 08 June 2010 11:00 PM

Lenny,

I agree that those of us committed to remaining with TEC should be willing to “go into exile” with the rest of the “nation.” So no, we should not *expect* special treatment. But we can ask!

I think that the implication is that while we wait, we “seek the welfare of the city” (I think it is noteworthy that what God promises the exiles when He says “the plans I have for for you” are things that he wants them to have *now* in exile, not just after the return. (snip)

That passage seems to me to be more applicable to people who leave TEC for a non-Anglican entity—another denomination or a non-denominational church. After all the words were originally written to Jews who were living in Babylon. To me it says, if you are “exiled”, don’t spend your time being bitter about the circumstances that resulted in your departure. Do what you can to benefit your new church. Put down some roots and grow where you have been sent into exile, and when the time comes (I hope it won’t be 70 years in our case,  but who knows?) God will return you or your descendants to the land.

As counterfactuals go, this is a fun one: What if Canterbury HAD early on offered to set up a real sanctuary for parishes and diocese in TEC? What if TEC said, “no?” What if the said, “yes?”

I don’t know why this has taken so long to occur to me, but is it possible that the ABC has not set up such a sanctuary because to do so against the wishes of the resident Primate, would in his opinion be a cross-boundary intervention in breach of the Windsor moratoria?

That passage seems to me to be more applicable to people who leave TEC for a non-Anglican entity—another denomination or a non-denominational church. After all the words were originally written to Jews who were living in Babylon. To me it says, if you are “exiled”, don’t spend your time being bitter about the circumstances that resulted in your departure. Do what you can to benefit your new church. Put down some roots and grow where you have been sent into exile, and when the time comes (I hope it won’t be 70 years in our case,  but who knows?) God will return you or your descendants to the land.

I don’t think the applications are mutually exclusive.

I don’t know why this has taken so long to occur to me, but is it possible that the ABC has not set up such a sanctuary because to do so against the wishes of the resident Primate, would in his opinion be a cross-boundary intervention in breach of the Windsor moratoria?

The ABC, being who he is, would ask permission. That is what makes the “no” answer so interesting.

The ABC, being who he is, would ask permission. That is what makes the “no” answer so interesting.

Can you flesh out what you mean by that?

Had the Archbishop agreed to set up a separate jurisdiction in the US, the precedent would have ramifications all over the Communion. I can imagine an “Anglican Mission to Sydney” (grin).  He did attempt to encourage traditionalists in the US, received their leaders at Lambeth Palace, to the displeasure of the TEC leadership. He stuck his neck out in his letter to Bishop Howe in which he cited the diocese as the essential unit of the church, one with which he could retain relationships.  All except the Windsor bishops were determined to leave TEC, hoping that ties to external Provinces might be a way to stake a continued claim to membership, which in fact, if not in theory undermined the Archbishops right to determine relationships with Anglican bishops directly, a pattern and method established when the first Lambeth Conference was called by Archbishop Longley.

To recognize a separate entity for Anglicans in North America, the Archbishop would have needed substantial support from the other Provinces, some of which while sympathetic to TEC and unsympathetic with its method of acting first and hoping to get away with it later, feared the precedent that woud have been set. And we should not forget that the creation of a parallel province in America would have undermined the ecclesiology +Rowan is fighting to preserve in the Covenant..  The leadership of TEC understands clearly that it has a card to play in asserting territorial autonomy, for in that area it can appeal to   the historical structure of the Church Catholic, which resonates elsewhere, even if it has no time for historic faith and practice.

To accede to a “Bantustan” pattern for the church worlwide in order to deal with a local tragedy would undermine the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant. This is cold comfort for those of us who remain within TEC from ecclesial conviction and yet that is something we must face. My “what if” is rather, “what if” the dioceses which have left had stayed in and cooperated fully in an ecclesial form of provincial civil disobedience thoroughly, perhaps in a manner now patterned by South Carolina?