Fourth, we have seen, predictably but sadly, the rise of the super-apostles, who have wanted everything to be cut and dried in ways for which our existing polity simply did not, and does not, allow.

Bishop Wright seems somewhat put off by GAFCON.  First of all, these ‘super-apostles’ do not want ‘everything to be cut and dried’.  Lambeth 1.10 upheld, yes.  Dromontine implemented, sure.  Tanzania enforced, you bet.  These were all agreed upon by the Bishops and the Primates of the Communion and deserve more serious consideration by the ABC.

Second, the rest of the paragraph seems to lay a great deal at the feet of the Global South.  I would like the good Bishop Wright to spend at least as much energy writing about a solution to the problem of Schori and Co.  Shooting arrows at the orthodox will not help the ‘tearing of the fabric’ which began at the behest of another group.

It strikes me that at every step in this crisis these “super-apostles” worked to strengthen the hand of the ABC so that, even with our weak polity, Rowan could respond effectively.  Instead, he has distanced himself from these efforts (at times undercutting them), and has not presented a compelling case for an alternative approach that would persuade his brother primates he can be trusted.  Even the argument for the covenant grows weaker with each iteration.

I doubt anyone in this crisis is without sin, but Rowan created a leadership vacuum and it was inevitable it would be filled.  It seems disingenuous for Bishop Wright to accuse those who worked to strengthen Rowan’s hand of “exploiting” the situation they worked so hard to avoid.

It really is worth reading the whole thing. The quotes above are just part of a longer piece that is very thoughtful. For me this part also stood out as being highly significant

Ever since it became clear in summer 2003 that the Episcopal Church in the United States was likely both to make Gene Robinson a bishop and to authorize public rites of same-sex blessings, there have naturally been groups who wanted someone, probably the Archbishop of Canterbury or, failing that, the Primates as a whole, to write the equivalent of 1 Corinthians, putting the Americans and others straight with some clear teaching on what is acceptable and what is not. Many, indeed, hoped that the Windsor Report would contain that sort of teaching, and were disappointed when it didn’t. But this was always a misunderstanding. The whole point of having the Lambeth Commission in the first place - forgive me reminding you of this but I find people keep on forgetting - was that Lambeth, the ACC, the Primates and Canterbury had already made the position abundantly clear, and the Americans had chosen to go their own way. If they did not hear Lambeth and the Primates, neither would they have been convinced even if Robin Eames should write another report.

My emphasis.

I would be more sympathetic to Wright’s argument if the ABC had not pulled the rug our from under the Windser “process” (how I hate that word) at Dar Es Saalam.  At that point he turned Windser and the Covenant into a never ending story that never reaches conclusion.

I do not think that the ABC wants finality and his Advent letter was simply a mechanism in this never ending process.  Dar Es Saalam could have been carried forward to conslusion.  Now that might have meant that real action would have been taken and that in turn probaly would have split the Communion as TEC walked away, so the ABC (and Wright) choose continued ambiguity at the price of throwing the Anglican orthodox to the wolves.

If the ABC is “pained” to such a degree then I suppose we know where his heart is.  And so do others.  That’s why they feel comfortable pushing their agenda.

Please note, I do not for one moment underestimate the awful situation that many of our American and Canadian friends have found themselves in, vilified, attacked and undermined by ecclesiastical authority figures who seem to have lost all grip on the gospel of Jesus Christ and to be eager only for lawsuits and property squabbles. I pray daily for many friends over there who are in intolerable situations and I don’t underestimate the pressures and strains. But I do have to say, as well, that these situations have been exploited by those who have long wanted to shift the balance of power in the Anglican Communion and who have used this awful situation as an opportunity to do so.

Basically +Wright is saying “I feel your pain, but sometimes the larger institution institution has to sacrifice a few for the greater good.”  This brings to mind Caiaphas who was determined to preserve his privileged status with Rome:

John 11:49-50   49 Caiaphas, who was high priest at that time, said, “You don’t know what you’re talking about!  50 You don’t realize that it’s better for you that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.”

and I can’t but help contrast this attitude with that of Jesus when He said:

John 10:11-15   11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd sacrifices his life for the sheep.  12 A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will abandon the sheep because they don’t belong to him and he isn’t their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks them and scatters the flock.  13 The hired hand runs away because he’s working only for the money and doesn’t really care about the sheep.  14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me,  15 just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep.

Maybe +Wright should write to the clergy and laity in North Florida (see below) and tell them how he feels their pain, but they have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

So is Wright saying Williams is using ‘Faculty Common Room English’ to the Tec bishops to tell them to stay at home? I don’t think they’ll get the message. Anyway, the June Bride and Gandalf will be there.
And I doubt the GAFCon folk will care for being likened to Paul’s opponents. I imagine they would rather see themselves as strong supporters of the Apostle’s doctrine and discipline, in the face of all those who have minimized or rejected his teaching.
I do wish Tom would stop the ecclesiatical politics and mend fences with conservative evangelicals (from which stable he came) instead of rudely assailing them all the time.

In spite of his protestations, I fear the good bishop truly fails to appreciate that we Americans are thick in the throes of spiritual warfare. If there is politicking, who began it? If there is a cross to gather around, who is going to bring us to it? The bishop’s following statement, by the way, seems a parallel of Jesus story of Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:19-31) “If they did not hear Lambeth and the Primates, neither would they have been convinced even if Robin Eames should write another report.” Compare with Jesus’ statement concerning those eternally separated from God: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

As much as I value many things about Bishop Wright, one of the annoying marks of his recent writing is frequent and predictable apologia for the ABC.  Can’t Rowan make it or break it on his own?  Well, I think I know the answer.  It would be refreshing to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury himself without the protection of the Bishop of Durham.

“Fourth, we have seen, predictably but sadly, the rise of the super-apostles, who have wanted everything to be cut and dried in ways for which our existing polity simply did not, and does not, allow. “

I think that +Wright does not take into account, or misunderstands, the very real consequences that the events of the past few years on these super-apostles as he calls them.  These ‘super apostles’ represent the evangelical of their provinces whose laity and clergy have really been hurt by the apostacy and wilfull departure from traditional Christianity and which have affected, and hurt, their ministries especially those who live on the knife’s edge of of evangelism and life with other cultures, some of whom of are inimically hostile to Christianity (Northern and Southern Nigeria for instance).
These are the ‘super-apostles’ as he calls them.  It is a derisory and contemptuous labeling, ill befitting a man of his stature.

Bill

To add to my comment above:  Didn’t he listen to the agonizing cries from ++Venables after +Robinson’s ‘consecration’ and the totally ignored pleas from ++Mouneer Anis at the conferrence in NO

I must say that I am unable to see a resemblance of the GS in his straw man.

He also uses the following phrase in describing GS expectations of the ABC as unrealistic: “whose [the ABC’s] testimony to the power of God is clear and bright, unsullied with moments of pain or despair.” 

If by that, he means the simple decency and honor to uphold agreements such as the DES communique, then I believe quite of few of us in the AC might be guilty of expecting that.

I thank the Lord daily that my Bishop and Archbishop are Super Apostles. Should we sit by and be marginalized into oblivion as Canterbury et al collaborate against us?
I think not Sir.
Intercessor

The Bishop of Durham better get his act together because the reruns are coming to a church near him.

Point 1 - Tibet and the Communist suppression has nothing at all to do with the current Anglican fracturing.
Point 2 - The old opportunity is the same as the new opportunity. I find it a bit ironic that an English Bishop talks about the new opportunity. The UK has had that for years yest the church is in a state of decline. TEC didn’t do so well in it’s decade of growth campaign as the church actually declined.
Point 3 - The problem is that the Eschatology and the Ecclesiology is not uniform across the Communion. I would go so far to say they in the US it is simply a weakened version of Gnosticism. Bishop Wright would have done better to place this in the context of the Epistles of Jude, Peter, and or John. The problem isn’t that the church has these differences (it always has and may - but I wish it wouldn’t), but it is entertaining a discussion on it and inviting its heretical teachers to be part of the discussion.
Point 2i - I frankly find this demeaning and missing the mark. True, our polity doesn’t allow us to have “all” things cut and dried. The issue is that those things we have agreed too some now want to reconsider - even to the point of calling sin godly. Fine. Let’s take a scriptural approach and remove them, allowing them time to consider their points of view. What we should not do is allow them all the room in the world to act non-Anglican while tearing down the rest of the Communion. Let’s agree to uphold DES, Windsor and Lambeth. Not upholding them has gotten us into this mess.

Lastly, I really, really admire +N.T. Wright. I’ve tried to read the way the brits can say a lot nicely when us in the States miss the real meaning, but I find this more fluff than substance. Maybe this is indicative that the US and Canadian issues just aren’t understood in the UK. And maybe the larger impacts haven’t been understood since WWII.

I am losing all patience and respect for Bishop Wright and his twisting of Scripture to suit his political agenda in the church. Paul is not contending in 2 Corinthians with “super-apostles” who “want Christian leadership to be a matter of heroism, of people who are above suffering, whose testimony to the power of God is clear and bright, unsullied with moments of pain or despair”. Where is he getting that stuff? Some actual biblical citations might be nice rather than blatant eisogesis. Paul clearly calls these super apostles also “false apostles” and servants of Satan, so it is clear that these are not to be considered fellow workers in the vineyard who are just a little too zealous. To equate them then with the Global south leaders whose orthodoxy cannot be questioned is the height of arrogance and condescension, traits too well engrained in much of British academia and episcopacy, it seems. C.S. Lewis, whom Wright has tried to emulate, had none of this arrogance. Furthermore, his prose was clearer and less inflated.

This one quote to me sums up the obtuseness that seems to be thick in the veins of Anglican establishmentarians like Wright:

When the Archbishop of Canterbury invited bishops from around the world to this summer’s Lambeth Conference, he made it clear that those who accepted the invitation were accepting the Windsor Report and the proposed Covenant as the tools with which to shape our common future.

Wow. Brillaint. And pointless. Have the liberals in TEC not also made it abundantly clear that they will interpret anything, said to them and by them, in a way that pleases them regardless of the understanding of others about what was said? Is Wright to have us believe, even though he has issued no clear threat of consequences to those who spurn Windsor, that the ABC is actually going to communicate to them a disinvitation to Lambeth? Wright really needs to get his head back into the realm where the sun is shining to see that there is good reason why many suppose that the ABC has no desire to discipline TEC; because he has never put teeth into anything he has said or done.

Perhaps the good bishop and NT Scholar ought to reread 1 Corinthians again and see that Paul not only gave a list of essentials and adiaphora; he also implemented stern discipline for those breaking the essentials; 1 Cor. 5: 3,5 “I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present… hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord”. If Windsor had actually done anything like this we might not be in the situation we are now.

#17: you’re right - Tom Wright is indulging in politically orientated Scripture-twisting, something we can all succumb to, but really inexcusable for evangelicals who believe the text is sacred and has a determinate, historically situated meaning that we must submit ourselves to. The GAFCon people would see themselves as DEFENDING Paul’s doctrine of Christ and teaching on sexual morality, not derogating from it (“That’s what Paul said, but I’m following Jesus here, ‘cos he never said anything ‘bout…” etc etc). The ‘super-apostles’ of 2 Cor 11:5 are soon identified as ‘false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ’ in verse 13. Is that what Wright thinks Akinola, Kolini, Jensen and Venables are? And does he imagine they have been ‘above suffering’ (!) in their ministry? (I wonder how many rooms there are in Auckland Castle ...) This is really bad stuff from a former NT professor!
And I’ve said before, I wish Wright (and Rowan Williams) would write less and write better, leaving out all the scorn and personal bloviation, and get to the point (if he has one).
I understand (I think) Tom Wright’s dilemma. The largest churches in much of the ‘Anglo’ Anglican world (and certainly the younger and more energetic) are mainly evangelical or evangelical-charismatic. They have lost the little confidence they had in Rowan Williams and are voting with their feet. Tom wants to keep them in line by denouncing rival shepherds.
But he’d be better served if he stopped acting as Rowan’s attack dog on the right and started listening more and saying less. He should go to GAFCon and learn from the suffering (and growing) church.

I am really not sure where we are going with all this. 

Recently in response to unacceptable threats to various members of Changing Attitude, a number of minor bishops in the CofE wrote a letter and the ABC made comment, directed [certainly in the case of the minor bishops] to the Global South and GAFCON in particular.  Changing Attitude has had to ‘clarify’ that these threats of violence were not specifically by or supported by the Global South or GAFCON members.  However they maintain that there is some sort of imputed support for such unacceptable threats of violence although there is nothing other than their say so to support such a vague imputation which could arise out of the biases or political agenda of Changing Attitude rather than any evidence.  Meanwhile the minor bishops and the ABC have, at the least, been unsupportive of the mission of those particularly in Africa facing real opposition from Muslim persecution.  Added to the Sharia Fiasco how is an African Anglican to view this?  At the least these actions from the ABC and some minor CofE bishops is a poor witness and possibly much worse, foolishly undermining of the mission of those in conditions few of these minor bishops have to deal with in Yorkshire and Surrey.

So what of the persecution of faithful Christians by the un-Godly in the US and Canada?  Did the Samaritan to take another biblical parallel kneel down beside the wounded man and pray for and with him, all the time empathising that he felt his pain?  No he picked him up, bound his wounds and took him to safety.

The criticism of those members of the Global South who have acted like the Samaritan is unwarranted and unhelpful.  This has been necessary and timely action.

I fear if there is a drive to separation then it has been inspired by the failure of the ABC to speak out; his toleration of the rebuff [to put it politely] of Bishop Howard one of the persecutors and others and the consequent driving off of the leaders of over half the world’s Anglicans.

I am concerned with the continued antagonism shown to the faithful Global South members who have come to the aid of persecuted Anglicans, who have shown a similar charity to that increasingly shown by the North American courts.  I am concerned by the belicose pronouncements and the lack of aid.  I am very concerned by the retirement of the ABC’s press spokesman, Rev Jennings and unaware of any replacement - if the last few months have shown anything it is that Lambeth Palace is in dire need of good common sense press liaison and feedback from the Communion. 

I fear more foolish gaffes, and I fear that they will not be from GAFCON.

It is still not too late.

1.  I struggle with a global community. I see a collection of interrelated communities, but not one singular organic whole. I see a vast disparity in belief and practice, and little progress towards agreement even on epistemology, let alone morals and ethics.
2.  I struggle with the concept of a united and harmonious society. Where? When? In what era? The last united and harmonious society was in Acts, and it lasted for a couple of years. What am I missing?
3.  I struggle with the notion of a missionary church. The Episcopal Church of my childhood was an hereditary organization, with one’s membership certified by one’s lineage back to the Revolution. It was a church of culture, wealth, and privilege, and the unwashed were not welcome. The Anglican Church of Britain is similarly an hereditary church, buttressed by being the state Church of the Empire. No mission there except preservation. There have certainly been evangelically minded souls, like Lord Carey and Nicky Gumbel, but they have been the exception.
4.  Such mission as has occupied the Anglican Church has been directed towards support of colonial rule; the masters of Empire brought their state church with them, along with their schools and their bureaucratic systems. The Prophets of the Anglican and Episcopalian traditions have been ill-used, in a manner similar to the treatment of the Prophets in the OT.
5.  The use of chapter 1 of Ephesians misses the point. What frame of reference is to be used in reading Ephesians? Is it the framework of God speaking to humankind through a chosen vessel, or the framework of a writing which arose out of the thoughts and desires of some later editor? Do we have, as nearly as humanly possible, the autograph of Saul of Tarsus, re-named Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, or do we have some later redactor’s opinions on what Paul should have said? And do we interpret these writings in the framework of Wisdom (the OT canon) or in the framework of Greek philosophy? The case can be made that even the early Fathers chose to read the Scriptures within the framework of Greek thought, rather than reading Plato within the framework of Proverbs.
6.  I seriously question any agreement of ontology. One cannot have ontology without Creation. One needs a Creator only if we are created beings; the commonly held view that we are accidental consequences of time, chance, and energy particles strips ontology of any sense. Without Creation there is no meaning to eschatology, no sensible New Jerusalem, no reality to the Throne of the Lamb. Without a Beginning there is no End.
7.  The teaching of the Cross is infrequently heard these days. The Cross is against all Greek philosophy. One cannot reason one’s way to find life in death. One cannot follow a path of defeat which leads to victory. It is nonsensical to say that where one is weak, there one is strong. Our American mega-Churches certainly have no use for the Cross. The whole covenant notion has been twisted and made into a contract between equals. The New Covenant which Jesus provided was between Creator and Creation, with the Creator establishing all the stipulations and no wiggle room for the Creation. Jesus did not say question authority; Jesus said Follow Me.