“... another basically protestant denomination… .”  And what pray tell is the Anglican communion?

“What sacrifices are you willing to make for the good of the Communion?”

In light of the fact that Lambeth 1.10 is still the position of the Communion, then, in order to avoid an utterly flaccid response, the sacrifice would seem to have to be one of the following:

1. TEC stops—actually stops—its problematic actions.

or

2. The AC makes it clear that it cannot include TEC.

(3.) The only other sacrifice would be for the Anglican mainstream to say that it did not mean what it has said in all its statements to this point. Or it meant them but it won’t do anything. Perhaps the result then won’t be the bang of a break-up but the whimper of withdrawal.

“another basically protestant denomination with quai-catholic ceremonial” - While I do not doubt this bishop’s orthodoxy, his statement belies what I have found to be an all too common Episcopal condescension to those who are not part of the TEC institution.  This opinion seems to be a common one in many folks who make up the Communion Conservative contingent and may explain part of their seemingly illogical, at least to me, devotion to the institution of TEC.

No. 1 wrote: “… another basically protestant denomination… .” And what pray tell is the Anglican communion?

Well, I think that what it comes down to is that they believe they are “Catholic” because of participating in Catholic order (think of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral). I don’t think it can simply mean having the historic Creeds and a high view of the sacraments because other Protestant churches have those. So I think much of it comes down to Anglicans’ traditional belief, hope, trust, and indeed pride in the “historic episcopate.” But what people (ordinary mainstream Anglicans, anyway) will make of the “historic episcopate”—its authority, its usefulness, its “catholicity”—may well depend in large part on what this gaggle of bishops produces at this conference.

Thirdly, there is no question that those who are here care deeply, even passionately, about the Anglican Communion. They want it to continue, to be healed and robust, and they want to be part of it.

So how do you do this?  Simply ignore what TEC is doing and go along to get along?  That’s fine for Howe while he is bishop but what happens to his diocese when he leaves?

“What sacrifices are you willing to make for the good of the Communion?”

One only sacrifices something valueable for something or greater value.

What are the conservatives being asked to sacrifice? And what is the thing or greater value for which they are to sacrifice?

It seems obvious that the answer to the first is: Biblical fidelity.

The answer to the second is “the good of the Communion”. But how can sacrificing biblical fidelity ever be to the “good” of any church?

This entire game is a non-starter

I see an overweening, inordinate passion for the institution and not a lot for the Gospel.  It’s the Paul, Apollos, Cephas thing, in a way again, isn’t it?  Do we follow the AC or do we follow Christ?

Also, in regard to this:  “What sacrifices are you willing to make for the good of the Communion?”

Better said, the Communion is willing to make what sacrifices for the good of its people, the body of Christ?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 cor. 3&version=47

Don’t know what happened to the link in #7.

Athanasius (#8),

Is I Corinthians 1:11-13 what you meant?

“...Most of the GAFCON folks have stayed away.  My sense is that most of them - not all, thank God - have given up on the Communion, and they are working toward a “new ecclesial structure.”  But those who are here do not see that as a Communion solution; it will be another basically protestant denomination (or denominations) with quasi-catholic ceremonial.”

I don’t think this perspective is actually true, that GAFCON is not about a Communion solution…it is simply tired of no solution from the Communion…nor do I think this characterization is particularly helpful toward the goals of healing and restoration John articulates…makes me wonder if we are not so stuck in having it our way that there really isn’t any hope of doing it God’s way.

We know these Lambeth bishops are exhausted from heat, conflict, and a three week conference, and ready to give into the group hug mentality…but once they go home and freshen up the liberals will be re-energized to force their way on everyone, and the conservatives will be busy fighting among themselves, and life will go on…

So how do we get a solution if it is not forced from GAFCON? And would people be as moved to act if GAFCON were not pushing at the very continued existence of the Communion?

My problem with what Howe says here is that to be truly catholic requires boundaries and discipline.  He is right that, if GAFCON spins off as another “denomination”, it will effectively be a Protestant one dressed up in catholic clothes.  But just as surely, if the Anglican Communion fails to maintain any boundaries or discipline and becomes an effective federation of independent national churches, then the Anglican Communion will ALSO be a Protestant federation dressed up in catholic clothes.

The only truly catholic solution that can come of this is if the Anglican Communion steps up to the plate, and adheres to boundaries and discipline.  And that, unfortunately, will mean that not everyone will be happy, smoking pot and dancing naked on the lawns of Lambeth under a big blue tent.

Don is correct - Howe is putting one spin on GAFCON, which was not necessarily reflected in the Jerusalem Declaration.  The other truly catholic solution (albeit more longer term) is for GAFCON to draw an increasing number of Anglican bishops, dioceses and provinces into its “communion within the federation” until (after the western liberals have all died off), the GAFCON affiliated provinces become the controlling force in and reform the Anglican Communion structures.

#9, yes.  My link skills are not up to snuff today.  Thanks.

Yes, there’s a twofer problem here (for ABC and AC), isn’t there? Without boundary marking for TEC, there will continue to be boundary crossing by others. Then, what will this conference have accomplished—for anyone? Everyone would be back to the status quo ante.

Right now the bishops at Lambeth must know that they can’t leave and have people know that all this time and money has been spent on atmospherics. Yes, that was crucially important in 1948, after the terrible divisions of war etc. But now people expect some real work to be done for the AC, not just for those who are in the indabas.

Better a Protestant denomination dressed up in catholic externals than a Unitarian denomination dressed up in catholic externals, which is what ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have become.

“...My sense is that most of them - not all, thank God - have given up on the Communion,...

That is an unfortunate and ill-informed comment.  I think he would be much more accurate if he acknowledged that GAFCON affirmed membership in the communion, but appears to question the value of the traditional instruments as they currently operate.  There is a considerable difference between (i) continuing to subordinate one’s province to the office of the politically appointed ABC; and (ii) breaking communion with all non-GAFCON bishops, including the ABC.

IMHO, there was a devaluation of the office of ABC as an instrument of unity that occurred when the ABC thwarted the DES Communique.  The PM had been authorized by the Lambeth Conference to handle issues like this.  Unfortunately, the ABC, as one instrument of unity, interfered with the actions of two other instruments of unity.  None of the bishops like Bp Howe are offering a rational explanation for the foregoing.  None of these bishops even seem to be dealing with this is reality.  None of these bishops offer even a whisper as to how such conduct meets any basic rules of order. 

After all that has transpired, it is reasonable (if not ineluctable) to conclude that the instruments of unity are compromised, regardless of how much we might wish it were otherwise. 

This is important context for evaluating the meaning and authority of the WCG, its observations, and the final statement.  Note that the WCG was appointed by the ABC alone, so that it holds no particular relationship to the deliberative bodies of the Lambeth Conference, the ACC, or the PM.  In addition, the final statement will be something other than a deliberative resolution of the Lambeth Conference.  This means that the observations are basically just a report to the ABC.  Who knows what meaning should be ascribed to the final statement - cynically, that may depend on the statement’s content and the observer.

At any rate, the relevance of these documents to the rest of the communion depends on ratification by one or more of the other instruments.  This ratification must occur when the AC remains deeply divided.  This does not augur well for the AC. 

As a side note, if the WCC is taking up loose reports for consideration and ratification, it might as well consider the JD of GAFCON too, if it would like to do something constructive. 

Someone explain to me why it is not wise or desireable to give up on what is euphemistically called the “communion?” It doesn’t exist except in name, and GAFCON makes this abundantly clear. Why do we WANT to get along with TEC? Should we not want to excise TEC like a dangerous growth because it will metastasize if left to grow on healthy flesh? What good is the “communion” not? Literally, what good is it? What benefits are derived? On the other hand, what new benefits accrue by cutting TEC from the body? If we admit that the bulk of all Anglicans are now south of the equator and that the force of Anglicanism should rightly move there, Why should we not put our energies behind GAFCON, saying, “Join us whoever will agree to our core doctrine?” This solution is right in front of us and it is in our power to take it. Just think: No more TEC, no more ABC, no more dogs’ dinners like Lambeth, no more Integrity. Like newly weds, we can spend our time happily well engaged, putting our new old house together.

  Why aren’t you people sick to death of the backing and filling, the
endless repetitions, the qualifications and nuances and divigations and vacillations and non-decisions - why aren’t you sick enough of all of this to ACT? When in your life have you ever heard a series of engagements as utterly unprofitable as this? And, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to return homosexuals to San Francisco and Fire Island and be done with them. Send them a goodbye note, saying, “When you are williing to agree that homosexuals acts are sinful and that you are anxious to repent, then we are willing to listen to you and to help. Otherwise, join TEC and enjoys all the pleasures thereof.”

    But then, ++ Deng has already said this, hasn’t he.  Do you really really think that if you harangue TEC and the homosexual world that SOMEHOW they are going to listen and to change? If this is what the Holy Spirit had wanted, don’t you suppose He would have acted before July 31, 2008?

  There is a Chinese proverbial tale, buddhist in origin, that goes thus: a man is chased over a cliff by a lion. Below him a dragon waits. He catches a shrub on the cliff whose sap is very sweet. AS it cracks under his weight, the saps drip on his tongue.  The shrub cannot bear his weight, but while it holds, he cries, “How sweet! How very sweet!”  And here we are, clutching the shrub and uttering cries at the taste of unity, an ephemera that must give way to the gravity of the forces that control our world. LM

This is the same John Howe who said yesterday, “one of the concerns we plan to share in the closing days of the Conference is the absolute necessity of having ratification of the Anglican Covenant take place at the DIOCESAN level, and not (just) the Provincial level.  We plan to remind our fellow Bishops of what the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to me last October: “I would repeat what I’ve said several times before - that any diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in TEC. The organ of union with the wider Church is the bishop and the diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such…. “

However, Canon Gregory Cameron, the Deputy Secretary of the Anglican Communion Office, in the press briefing today, just contradicted him.  It is about the province, not the diocese.  I think the phrase would be that the Archbishop’s statement to Howe is “no longer operative”.