The Rev Phil Snyder stated above “Clarity would have called for TEC to remove its delegates from ACC and would ask +KJS to step down from the JSC and acknowledgement (sic)that she will not be invited to any Primates’ meetings until TEC evidences recognition that it has rent the fabric and that it will take steps to repair the damage it has caused.”  Given that, if Windsor and Lambeth 1.10 are the standards, respecting both Theology and respect for church governance, the GS core is equally in violation. If separate tracks for those who have chosen a local option applies, would he concur that the GS’s activities should also require its expulsion, removal of its delegates from the ACC and removal of its primates from the primate’s meetings?  My point: there is more than one issue here. Removal of TEC from the governing body of the communion would deny it voice and vote to participate in forming the mind of the communion.  If that is the intent of the GS, they well succeeded in TEC’s choice to voluntary 3 year absence.  In that time, the primates moved to pack the ACC with its members, Dromantine and Nottingham took place,  surely not in TEC’s interest. But TEC will not go voluntarily again and, if even handedness is a value, for +Cantuar and others who witnessed what happened in TEC’s 3 year absence, it would seem that some sort of balance is needed.  Mr. Snyder’s suggestion seems entirely one-sided.

Emily,

The problem with your question is that it assumes equal culpability on the part of TEC & GS. Remember: it’s not Windsor & Lambeth 1:10. It was the violation of the 1:10 that caused this present crisis in the Communion(when there is a fist fight it’s always good to know who threw the first punch). Windsor was a response to that crisis. As far as the GS is concerned,  TEC has not repented of its actions of 2003 and thereby has not conformed to the mind of the Church on the issue of human sexuality. Ultimately, this what ++Rowan is side stepping and has led directlty to the creation of ANCA/FCA, and to the “possible” end of the old instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion. What happens now? Two tracks? Loose federation?  Two Communions ?  I don’t know.

Pax,
Edward

Emily,

Note that neither the primates nor the ABC nor the ACC provided moral equivalency between the GS primates providing pastoral oversight to congregations within TEC’s borders (a violation of Church order) and TEC’s innovations in the areas of moral theology and practice (a violation of the Faith of the Church).

We have to remember that the recent unpleasantness does not find its genesis in 2003 with the consecration Gene Robinson; that was just the straw that broke the camels back.  The bigger issue was the results of the +Righter trial where TEC said, in effect, that sexual morality is not part of core doctrine.  It was only after that event that AMiA was formed and we started to see GS bishops exercising pastoral care.

Frankly, I don’t understand TEC’s gripe.  If the Spirit can move to do “a new thing” in blessing same sex unions, why can’t the Spirit move to lead bishops to take oversight of congregations and dioceses that cry out to them for help?

Personally, I believe that both are wrong and that you should not attempt to defend Catholic Doctrine by violating Catholic Order.  But if I have to violate one, violations of order are less destructive than violations of doctrine.  Remember that Athanasius himself provided pastoral oversight - including ordinations - in dioceses outside his own when the diocesan was an Arian bishop.

So, it seems that the Global South has a plan to eventually stop (what better reason to occassionally split an infinitive?) their pastoral oversight of congregations outside their geographical boundries.  Does TEC have a plan to stop ordaining practicing homosexuals and stop blessing same sex unions?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Of course the Spirit can move congregations to call out, and, as TEC will be responsible for listening to said Spirit and the consequences of such listening, so should the GS be responsible.  You will recall that Lambeth 1.10 had a second clause calling for the listening process.  That too has been ignored.  As you recall, +Cantuar stated in his advent letter and his straw poll of the primates, their reaction to TEC’s bishop’s comments on BO33 was mixed, but the interventions were universally condemned.  No one here is without responsibility and to paint either side as all in the wrong, request its chastisement or punishment without at least acknowledging the contributory culpable negligence of the other baffles me.  No black.  No white. Just gray.  And it is dealing with the gray in life that is the challenge.

The Rev. Snyder said:  On the issue of what the ACC said about moral equivalency, that was said when both Canada and the US were not represented.

Rev. Snyder also said:

“Personally, I believe that both are wrong and that you should not attempt to defend Catholic Doctrine by violating Catholic Order.  But if I have to violate one, violations of order are less destructive than violations of doctrine.  Remember that Athanasius himself provided pastoral oversight - including ordinations - in dioceses outside his own when the diocesan was an Arian bishop.” 

This statement implies a “have to” condition.  There was no “have to” involved in the GS primate’s decision to intervene in TEC’s or the ACA’s jurisdiction.  This was a choice.  Personally I am a bit tired of Athanasius.  What makes his thinking definitive?  His creed didn’t seem to be accepted as such. 

The Rev. Snyder also said:

“So, it seems that the Global South has a plan to eventually stop (what better reason to occassionally (sic) split an infinitive?) their pastoral oversight of congregations outside their geographical boundries (sic).  Does TEC have a plan to stop ordaining practicing homosexuals and stop blessing same sex unions?”

This statement implies a tit for tat exchange.  Now that the damage is done, the creation of the ACNA whose clear intent is to replace TEC and the fomenting and support of schism is North America, what value is it to North Americans that the GS has a plan to ultimately stop? 

I am afraid Deacon Snyder that we will disagree.  I believe that both sides have made choices. No one was forced.  Nigerians are not “listening” to homosexuals and they are defining sexual ethics as core doctrine for the Communion and defining doctrinal conformity as the decider of communion status.  TEC is insisting that sexual morality is not core.  It is insisting that there are other concerns besides doctrine that define communion status and, on the presenting issue of the life of homosexuals in the church, demanding the right, under its canons and procedures, to ordain and consecrate them if it so chooses.  Neither side has been willing to “wait.”

These last few exchanges have been interesting.  So here is an alternate view.

1) Lambeth is not a legislative body and has never been authorized as such by some vote of the Communion.  A Communion wide vote has not been taken because there are no agreed upon mechanisms for taking one.  In short there is no constitution for the WWAC, hence no authority to speak in a judicial form.

2) Lambeth I.10 has four sections. If we give weight to one we must give weight to all.  It calls for a loving and proactive listening to glbt folk.  To believe that such listening has been done by the “ultra-conservative” elements of the church would be self delusion.  And, despite repeated statements anathematizing violence against gays GS Primates like Akinola continue to support their imprisonment. Anyone who promotes such a position, or supports those who do is in violation of Lambeth I.10 and Dromantine and Windsor. They have no moral high ground upon which to stand.

3)  They are welcome to claim that there is no moral equivalence between moratoria one and two and moratorium three. So what? A “rule” is a rule, especially by an authority you tout. Our expression of regret was deemed sufficient, who is anyone to judge that it was not?  No such regret has been expressed by the interlopers.

4) So I am not the least bit disposed to acknowledge as valid authorities and rules that are routinely violated by those who propose them and enforced only upon one “errant” party and not all.  If there are two tiers then surely Nigeria and others will be in that second tier with TEC for its open support for the imprisonment of glbt folks and anyone who assembles to talk about glbt civil rights.  If signing the Anglican Covenant excuses their misbehavior in jumping jurisdictions and persecuting glbt peopleI am fine not being part of such a church.

5) And just in general I decry the violence done to Scripture to bolster a bigotry, whether segregationism or anti-gayism.

For Mr. Craig who wrote:

As far as the GS is concerned,  TEC has not repented of its actions of 2003 and thereby has not conformed to the mind of the Church on the issue of human sexuality.

  No “repentance” was called for by Windsor.  That is a GS term and implies an error or sin to be forgiven.

No “repentance” was called for by Windsor.  That is a GS term and implies an error or sin to be forgiven.

Emily,

This is exactly why some GS primates were leery of Windsor from the beginning, as it asked for an expression of regret rather than repentance.

From my perspective, TEC has offered a statement of regret, but as it was exacted under duress, I do not believe TEC as a whole ever actually “regretted” anything, for good or ill (except, perhaps, the way others reacted to what we did).  This past GC demonstrated that fairly clearly.

Jody,

TEC’s “expression of regret” was of the form “I’m really sorry you were hurt.”  It took no responsibility that it was our actions that hurt them.  It’s similar to a husband saying to his wife “I’m sorry you were hurt when I had that affair.” 

TEC has taken no responsibility for its role in tearing the fabric of the communion.  I believe that is the whole point of the Archbishop’s message.  The question we have is that we don’t have any real discipline in the Communion and we now see the need for discipline in the communion.  This is where the Covenant comes in.  Yet to be determined is how discipline will be provide within the Covenant.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 28 July 2009 03:31 PM

Jody,

TEC’s “expression of regret” was of the form “I’m really sorry you were hurt.”  It took no responsibility that it was our actions that hurt them.  It’s similar to a husband saying to his wife “I’m sorry you were hurt when I had that affair.” 

TEC has taken no responsibility for its role in tearing the fabric of the communion.  I believe that is the whole point of the Archbishop’s message.  The question we have is that we don’t have any real discipline in the Communion and we now see the need for discipline in the communion.  This is where the Covenant comes in.  Yet to be determined is how discipline will be provide within the Covenant.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,

I agree with you on both counts. (Please don’t fall over!)  TEC said it was real sorry that some folks got their knickers in a twist over this and regretted that those twisted knickers were affecting “communion.” 

And there are no structures in the WWAC for disciplining those some think are errant.  People though the Instruments of Whatever would be a good idea, but they have no ground for authority beyond their previous charters, such as they are.  And the IW functioned so anarchically these last few years that no one in their right mind would surrender control to them.  The Ridley draft reduces that to a total mush for yet more anarchy.

The real culprits in the knicker twisting are those who decided to USE the situation to work out longer standing grievances; claims about TEC’s theology, its social justice posture,ordination of women, and refusal to discipline people they thought should be disciplined. They leapt upon the Robinson consecration because they thought it would lead to swift and decisive action against TEC.

Instead, of course, it hasn’t, it has rather revealed the nature and texture of the emerging effort at doctrinal and biblical tryranny that would transform Anglicanism into just another average American congregationalit-fundamentalist church paying its homage to James Dobson and Rick Warren.

Michael, I’ve never worn knickers so I don’t think I fall into the twisted knickers crowd (weren’t they a big hair band in the 80’s?).  Be that as it may, may I assume that you are less than supportive of the ABC’s efforts to push forward with the Covenant? Would you feel that signing onto the Covenant (in its most recent incarnation) would be a violation of all that TEC holds dear (aka the Constitution and Canons)?  I’m sensing that you might, but wanted to run it past you before making any assumptions.

Michael,

I would agree that there are no structures for discipline in the Communion - thus the drive for a covenant.  But, TEC is the one who broke the bonds of fellowship, not the Global South.  You spoke of the “listening process.” 

The ACC asked us to not move forward (backward) with ordaining a bishop sexually active outside of marriage and to not bless same sex unions.

We didn’t listen.

The Lambeth conference asked us not to bless sames sex unions nor to ordain those involved in them.

We didn’t listen.

The Primates said that proceeding with the ordination of Gene Robinson as a bishop would rend the fabric (=schism) and asked us not to continue.

We didn’t listen.

The Archbishop of Canterbury asked us not to proceed and, again, asked us not to put more obstacles to reconciliation in place in 2009.

We didn’t listen.

Our HOB Theology Committee (2003) said that these things should not be handled legislatively.

We didn’t listen.

The General Convention of the Church said that we should not move forward on these items by ourselves - that we should wait for consensus from the Communion.

We didn’t listen to that either.

When will TEC start listening to anyone but its current leadership?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 28 July 2009 03:31 PM

Jody,

TEC’s “expression of regret” was of the form “I’m really sorry you were hurt.”  It took no responsibility that it was our actions that hurt them.  It’s similar to a husband saying to his wife “I’m sorry you were hurt when I had that affair.” 

TEC has taken no responsibility for its role in tearing the fabric of the communion.  I believe that is the whole point of the Archbishop’s message.  The question we have is that we don’t have any real discipline in the Communion and we now see the need for discipline in the communion.  This is where the Covenant comes in.  Yet to be determined is how discipline will be provide within the Covenant.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,

I think that’s what I said… TEC expressed regret, but never over our actions, only over the effect, i.e. the fact that others didn’t like what we did.  I suppose you could say there’s some honesty in that, except that we allowed and encouraged other members of the communion to hear what they wanted (regret over actual actions) rather than what was meant.  The General Convention has cleared that up for us, and we can, I think, be thankful for the honesty regardless of our opinions on the issues, as only honesty will eventually move us out of this deadlock and get us all on our various ways.

I finally got around to reading the Archbishop’s statement today and I have not had time to read all the posts in this thread. If my comments are redundant, I apologize.

Dr. Williams wrote about the structures of the Communion and one might assume, if one knew little of the history of the Communion, that these structures have been around for centuries - after all, we claim that the Church in England is very ancient and might even believe, with Blake, that the Lamb of God was in England’s pleasant pastures seen. The Communion structures, however, are, with the exception of the See of Canterbury, are of recent creation - the Lambeth Conference in 1867, the Anglican Consultative Council in 1971, and the Primates meetings in 1978. Prior to the creation of ECUSA, the Communion was of the member churches in the UK and their colonial missions - the congregations in the American colonies were under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London.

The structures were, I believe, created largely to facilitate communication and cooperation among the national and regional churches of the communion. As Dr. Williams observed we have been able to have a surprising degree of diversity in the Communion. Perhaps that diversity was possible because we lived at a distance from one another and diversity wasn’t seen as a threat. Now, with so much and often very inaccurate communication,diversity has come to be seen as a threat and I think that the structures which were created to facilitate communication and cooperation are now being pressed by some to do just the opposite.

Edward Craig - 28 July 2009 09:31 AM

Emily,

The problem with your question is that it assumes equal culpability on the part of TEC & GS. Remember: it’s not Windsor & Lambeth 1:10. It was the violation of the 1:10 that caused this present crisis in the Communion(when there is a fist fight it’s always good to know who threw the first punch). Windsor was a response to that crisis. As far as the GS is concerned,  TEC has not repented of its actions of 2003 and thereby has not conformed to the mind of the Church on the issue of human sexuality. Ultimately, this what ++Rowan is side stepping and has led directlty to the creation of ANCA/FCA, and to the “possible” end of the old instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion. What happens now? Two tracks? Loose federation?  Two Communions ?  I don’t know.

Pax,
Edward

Perhaps it would help me to see the degree of faithfulness to I.10 more clearly if someone would provide me with a brief history of how all the Bishops of the Communion lived out their commitment to listen to the experience of gay and lesbian persons in their societies. I will make a point that I have made before. I find it hard to assume that a resolution adopted by a small group of Anglicans, i.e., Bishops, is the mind of the Communion.