ACI almost speaks plainly here, but it still clings to its vain hope for reconciliation (or at least conciliation) amongst peoples for whom bitterness, pain, betrayal, and retribution express their recent experiences in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

This is too little, too late. The die is cast. Henceforth we will talk across the divide in two ways only: lawsuits, and the type of (non-)conversations that will support our lawsuits--such as the recent letters by the Presiding Bishop to Archbishops Orombi and Venables.
The Rabbit.

Nice try, but I don’t think the progressives are going to buy it.  They want the property.

#2 I think the progressives will be happy to hear the ACI refer to their ‘new revelation of the Spirit’ to be considered ‘principled’ and ‘reasonable’ and conpatible with Communion.  But you are right… the actions speak for themselves.  Progressives recoil at the suggestion that they might have to submit themselves and their views and practices to the larger body.  They want to be recognized and left alone.  Ultimately, I think they believe they have the position that will and should prevail and are out to do that by exercising political power.  And I might also add, seem to enjoy the power.  Property is just one expressing of the power politic.  Deposing is another.

#3, I think conservatives make a big mistake to view progressives as unserious about their beliefs.  They definitely do believe that God is doing a New Thing and that they are doing God’s work.  Apparently, contra the ACI’s invitation, they believe that they are called by God to lead the rest of the Anglican Communion to their point of view.  To let go of the historic properties, whose builders would, I think, be appalled at the New Thing, would be to acknowledge that theirs is just another opinion.

JamesW has talked about his hope for GAFCon that a true communion (with members with all members in communion with each other mutually) emerging within the present federation of the Anglican “Communion.” I would like to see a covenant within the Core Anglican Communion but that would be an altogether different animal than a covenant that tries to hold the entire present Anglican “Communion” together as a communion, something that the ACI seems to be acknowledging is an impossibility anyway. The covenant needs to be written by the Core Anglican Communion. For example, the Katherine Jefferts Schori lackey, Katherine Grieb, needs to be defenestrated.

A sticking point: The present cabal of the TEO are a minority of left wing loonies that managed to place in nearly every position of power a “gay or gay wannabes” thereby usurping a once former Christian denomination. Of course, this has led to people fleeing at an ever-increasing rate, but the successful junta of the erstwhile TEC has emboldened them to do the same with the present Anglican Communion. Gene Robinson has openly declared his disdain for the institution and that he has no qualms about bringing about its demise to further his cause. Rowan Williams appalling lack of leadership has only encouraged this lot. This is why GAFCon is critical.

A second sticking point: There will individuals, parishes and dioceses that want to be part of the Core Anglican Communion” but are located geographically within a simple federation member. The second tier has shown they have no intention of “taking courage in both hands” and allowing departures in an amicable fashion.

I wonder if the authors would define who they are addressing by the quote “Come, Let us Reason Together.” The context of this Scripture from Isaiah 1 includes the address: “Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God,you people of Gomorrah! Isaiah 1:10 (ESV) The text clearly calls for repentance and obedience as prerequisites for reasoning together and any congruent vision or steps forward between God and the people of Judah.

Likewise, any shared vision or forward movement between the parties discussed would require shared repentance and obedience to the gospel.  Therefore, I think the parties to whom this is directed need to be defined. Are they the liberal leadership or those in the pews who are uncertain about Biblical teaching of sexuality and just want to move on or just to the Orthodox?

Because, if this is directed to the liberal leadership I think this avoids the question of do they just disagree about the sexuality issue versus are they rather servants of Satan masquerading as a servants of light or wolves in sheep’s clothing which either consciously or unknowningly are working to destroy God’s church.  This Biblical view cannot be ignored in the present situation.  Both Paul and Jesus said that such deceivers would come.

With one, reasoning might prevail as this letter suggests; however with the latter, only earnest spiritual warfare, wisdom and God’s love and grace will prevail.  So in the latter case it might be better to address the orthodox and write “Come, let us put on our spiritual armour together and fast and pray and defend the faith against the forces of darkness at work in this conflict.”

Unaccustomed arguments but a welcome turn to reality from the CEO & COO of ACI & Co., Inc. I agree with several posters above that recognizing the principled integrity of the words, if not always the actions, of TEC & Co. Inc. will be important if those concerned to leave the Alice in Wonderland show ("One Holy Catholic and Apostolic means what I say it means") are not to merit the tag of bigotry from most neutral outside observers. Valentinianism was intellectually refined and noble in its aspirations, philosophically and culturally far more subtle and attuned than many of the leading spokesmen of the church catholic.  It just wasn’t compatible with the apostolic gospel of Christ for Jews and Gentiles. And there’s the rub. The relationship between these two entities, like that between Irenaeus and Florinus, would now be “ecumenical”, not eucharistic.

We ought to be honest here: many of us believe that reappraisers are sincere, honest, truthful, nice most of the time, and certainly passionate about their causes. But they begin with certain assumptions (conclusions?), speak a different language, engage in tactics which inhibit and even preclude conversation, and conduct “reconciliation” in such a way that reconciliation seems a synonym for surrender for those who cannot agree with them. How then can “conversation” and dialogue “proceed”? It can’t.

Well said by the ACI.  Dead on arrival at 815.

Peace,

Just so there is no confusion. The point of essays like this is (hopefully) to get the transactional context clear and to stay away from defensiveness and the ‘away game’. Saying that, it is interesting to see the wide variety of perspectives on the conservative side. The NYC covenant event at GTS convinced many, including myself, that General Convention will never accept a covenant almost in the nature of the case. Now much of this could be posturing from which one must back down. But I am far less persuaded than some that TEC will wish to move forward with any kind of covenant, and given that, it is important to recall that this was always a possible outcome. Hence the archbishop’s concern that there be realism re: things like ‘ecumenical relationships’ and two tiers. I am not convinced that has changed. The appendix that is viewed by many as inadequate was roundly condemned at GTS for affrontery. It was a toxic, mean spirited, unanglican thing. When even G Cameron tried to suggest that covenants are already part of the lexicon of TEC’s own relationships with its missionary regions, this ameliorated concern not one iota. The crowd still cried out ‘foul.’ So much of this turns on perspective and how wide one is able to see that, which is no simple task and in the end belongs of course to God.