Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop of Rochester, Church of England, Michael Nazir-Ali

Way too early to tell

Well, apparently the time has come for the Archbishop of Canterbury to consider stepping down. <sarcasm on> I do consider this to be truly reliable and journalism at its finest<sarcasm off>. It does make for entertaining reading though…. Read it all here.

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams set to quit next year

The Archbishop of Canterbury is planning to resign next year, nearly a decade before he is due to step down, it can be revealed.

Dr Rowan Williams is understood to have told friends he is ready to quit the highest office in the Church of England to pursue a life in academia.

The news will trigger intense plotting behind the scenes over who should succeed the 61-year-old archbishop, who is not required to retire until he is 70.

While there may be hope that this is the case, I’d call for caution amongst the conservative minded among us for several reasons. First, I have a hard time believing the Bishop of London saying such a thing. He may have had a personal sentiment similar to the statement. However, Bishop Richard is far to savvy to have let something like this slip. And if he did then someone near and dear has just shown themselves the door. Second, Archbishop Williams has not stepped down throughout the significant controversies so far why should he do so now? The ABC has steered a course through the present travails, whether one agrees the direction or not, and has not shown any hint of retiring to academia. Lastly, IF (and that’s a big if) he does step down as and when  Mr. Wynne-Jones iterates, what is there to show, past or present, that the next ABC will be anything close to ‘orthodox’? I am not trying to be cynical. Yet, there is no reason to believe that someone with even a hint of orthodoxy would be chosen in the present climate of the UK. I hope to be proven wrong on this point. I really do. But there is nothing that leads me to believe that this would be the case. It would take significant political wrangling for a ‘conservative’ to be named. I do hope that the next ABC will be able to stand in a way which will lead this Communion out of such stormy seas. Bishop Michael are you ready to take up the reins?

Standard
ACNA, Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England, General Synod, TEC

ACNA PMM at CoE General Synod

Those that have been proclaiming victory for ACNA in regard to the PMM at General Synod are, in my estimation, at best too hopeful and at worst misguided. Read it carefully. In true English fashion, it does not state affirmation of ACNA but of ACNA’s desire. Moreover, it does not say that ACNA is an Anglican church, as some have asserted. Rather it simply notes that there have been divisions in the Anglican churches in Canada and US (this does not mean ACNA!). As much as this American priest in the CoE would like it to say something different, it sadly does not. Another wait and see tactic. Matt Kennedy over at Stand Firm puts it succinctly, whom I quote below.

Some requests and notes about the Synod vote
Thursday, February 11, 2010 • 9:13 am
Five quick notes prefaced by some requests:

Requests: Please Read The Resolution. Do exegesis; not isogesis. Please resist the temptation to read your wishes and desires into the text.

1. The motion does not “affirm” the ACNA.

2. The motion does not “affirm” that the ACNA is part of the Anglican Communion.

3. The motion “affirms” a “desire” . Translation: Ohhh, how sweet that you want to be my boyfriend. I “affirm” your desire.

4. The motion does not refer to the ACNA as a whole but to the desire of “those who formed” the ACNA.

5. The motion does not affirm the desire of “those who formed the ACNA” to remain in “the Anglican Communion”, but rather, it affirms their desire to remain a part of the Anglican “family”. Arguably, anyone who prays with a prayerbook and wears a robe of some kind could be considered a member of the “Anglican Family”

Standard
Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury, Ecclesial issues, General Convention, Lambeth Conference, N.T. Wright, TEC, TEC Conflict, Uncategorized

Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, responds to ++Cantuar’s ‘reflection’.

I have just one question for Bishop Wright regarding the following:

and he warns against speaking ‘in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication’. He also speaks of the ‘twofold ecclesial reality’ as a ‘possibility’ in the ‘middle distance’. (ii) The Reality: But, as he himself has indicated, key decisions have been made (obviously not yet in terms of voting on the Covenant, but certainly in terms of taking stances which will lead directly to such votes); schism has already happened; and not just a twofold, but a confusing and pluriform ecclesial reality, is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact. (emphasis mine)

Which of you is right? The ++ABC warns against speaking in terms of schism and excommunication’, but shortly after, you state that “schism has already happened…” It appears that the ++ABC is simply not willing to recognise the facts on the ground, no matter his assent to the destructive actions of GC. This is what some commentators have noted as ++Cantuar’s Hegelian dialectic. If ++Cantuar is unwilling to recognise the schism, in concept or otherwise, the quick action called for by +Durham will not come. Then where does that leave us? I’m afraid we’ll be, yet again, in the developing Anglican purgatory…

Read the whole thing here.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Standard
Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury, General Convention, TEC, TEC Conflict

Matt Kennedy’s take on the ABC’s Statement

Short, concise and clear. Definitely a contrast to the ABC’s statement. Read it all below.
(Hat tip: StandFirm)

My Take on the ABC’s Statement

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 • 5:53 am


Greg pointed out that I’m one of the only SF writers who has not yet published an analysis of the ABC‘s statement. I told him that I’d decided to let the little dogs yap around in the yard first before the big dog (that’s me) steps in. I think he understood.

So here it goes…

I know that many at SF are not pleased with the ABC‘s statement and compared to the kind of robust response to outright heresy you might expect from a functional Christian community, yeah, I agree, it’s sickly and weak. But hey, it’s the Anglican Communion — a messed-up family of 38 including at least four naked uncle Joes who routinely arrive at family dinners already toasted and end up naked in the corner wearing lampshades. If you want to keep people like that at the table without actually doing anything to help them, you gotta make some compromises. The Archbishop understands that.

That’s my take.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Standard
Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England, General Convention, Ruth Gledhill's Blog, TEC, TEC Conflict

ABC responds to GC09

The blogosphere is alive with the sound of typing… The ABC has finally put into words his response. If you haven’t read it all already, read it here.

What has really struck me, as I’ve been wading through the pages upon pages of responses to the ABC, is how the responses have fallen to one side or the other of the Atlantic. It appears that major responses on this side of the pond have ranged from hesitantly hopeful to overtly so. As one might expect, on the other side of the pond, blogs like StandFirm are less than pleased. (And I would tend to agree with them.)

However, I did truly appreciate the translation Peter Ould did of the ABC’s comments, though I believe he is too optimistic in response. There comes a time when words, however well crafted, are simply that – just words. I can sense the pleasure many commentators have gotten deciphering the intent and subtleties of Archbishop Williams’ words. But when will it end? Only God knows… But it appears that there is no impetus by the ABC or TEC to rush or push this forward. Moreover, I tend to agree with a commentor  on Ruth Gledhill’s blog about +Cantuar’s suggestion of a ‘two-tiered’ Communion.

I don’t get this at all. How is it a COMMUNION if there are two tiers? With all do respect, Archbishop Williams, you are a learned theologian and you know that two tiers do not make for one communion in any sense of Christian ecclesiology. You clasp onto TEC and try to keep them in the communion while TEC is delighted in a subdued fashion to see her conservative members leave and offer no such hand of pastoral affection. My Lord, this is not a paradox! This is a contradiction!

Posted by: Richard | 28 Jul 2009 06:06:19

In the end, for me (personally), I do not see how a Covenant or any other possibility short of expulsion from the Communion, will address the actions of TEC sufficiently. As a priest in the CofE who is American, I am bewildered at the lack of understanding on this side of the pond in regard to what is taking place in North America. I am all for reconcilliation and the gospel imperative of forgiveness. I too have read the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goats, etc. But we are beyond these. We have a church which espouses a ‘doctrine’ which contravines Holy Scripture, and here I am not speaking about sexuality. When does a church cease to be a Christian church?

I had a conversation once with someone on this very issue. We were discussing the whole situation in North America. The argument arose that sexuality was a second order issue, but we could at least agree on the essentials. I responed by asking: ‘What were those essentials?’ The response came, Well, the creeds for instance. ‘But this is the problem.’, I said, ‘We have a church which no longer believes the Creeds as they have been handed down. So where does that leave us?’ And the response to this was: So why haven’t we done anything about this? All I could do was shake my head and say: ‘I don’t know.’

And I still don’t know why we won’t act. The time has come, and some would suggest, that it has gone. Because of this people have acted in their own capacities to address the issue. I am not suggesting one ‘strategy’ over another. I have friends who are in all ‘three camps‘, as Sarah Hey has noted. I am not advocating one over the other. We must all discern our own call and in the process not denegrate each other.

This being said, there comes a point where we must do something. Is this not the acusation leveled at the Christian church today, when people say that the Church is irrelevant to contemporary society? Moreover, is this not the internal critique made by neo-monastic communities/fresh expressions/emerging communities? Are they not trying to overcome this inactivity? By not acting, are we simply caught up in the Enlightenment understanding of propositional theology being the endall/beall of doctrinal significance?

There does come a time to act. And if now is not that time, then when? I have a tendency to agree with David Ould when he states:

…Canterbury is vitally important, evidenced not least by the profoundly negative impact that Williams’ inaction has had on the Communion. So a call now for Williams to go, in the light of his inactivity, is not to undermine Canterbury but, rather, to hold it in a very high place. For the sake of the reputation of his very high office he must vacate Augustine’s Chair.

I would be very hesitant to go as far as David Ould does, but what are the other options? A two-tiered Communion? As already noted, that is no Communion at all. It is a contradiction. I hope and pray that the Communion will come to some sort of conclusion. Yes we do live in tension, in a Kingdom of now but not yet. However, is this what that truly means? Heresy in tension with the gospel? I cannot agree with that assessment. I pray that the ABC is not left behind due to inactivity. It would be a truly sad day if that were to ever be the case. My concern is that the ABC will be left at the table with no one with which to talk. Both sides will have left and the ABC will be left alone sitting at the table. What a sad day that would be….

Standard
Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury

Is silence complicity?

As I’m sure we’re all aware there is a deafening silence coming from Lambeth at the moment. I’m with Greg Griffith in regard to this. (read his article here.) But what is interesting to me is also the silence from the conservative blogosphere. Yes there have been the usual responses to the actions of GC09. An excellent article by Bishop Wright in the Times. But now, it is silent…eerily silent. I wonder what is going on behind closed doors.

However, this leads me to the (lack of) response by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am more than aware that there are an extensive amount of complexities at play in the situations. I am also aware that there needs to be a reasoned response, both measured and level. But in the end, the response/statement must come. Or is this our response? If so, (since no one else seems to want to directly say it, I will) is the Archbishop of Canterbury complicit with GC09, TEC and all revisionists who are wanting a ‘fully inclusive’ church? Has he giving his response already?

The longer the silence, the more it appears that way. (Insert well know cliche here) Now this is not earth-shattering news. Some of the more conservative pundits have been alledging this for quite some time. But if this is really the case, then the instrument of Unity that is the Archbishop of Canterbury, is no longer an instrument of Unity or a measure of one’s Anglican identity. If the ABC has given his answer, then where does that leave us?

For all intents and purposes the instruments of Unity only work when we are able to respect and receive the action/statments of said instruments. If we don’t, then how are they unifying? Moreover, to create a fifth instrument of Unity (the Covenant) which allows extreme autonomy to reside in provinces will not provide an unifying effect either. With provincial autonomy being bantered about, I wonder if it is inherent to the Anglican Communion or is a self-serving, cultural infiltration to guard our personal autonomy and thereby celebrate the post-modern/contemporary society’s unwillingness to submit (I use this word in a traditional sense) to any sort of authority at all?

No matter where we end up, it appears that the Anglican landscape has been ultimately altered, more by a wrecking ball than by glacial movement. In the end, we’ll just have to wait. And who said Anglicans don’t believe in purgatory?

Standard