“In my opinion we missed a golden opportunity to address the crisis [at Lambeth],” he said. “Sweeping it under the rug is not dealing with it. I don’t want to be unduly critical of this Lambeth Conference, but they really didn’t know what they were doing.”

Amen.

“I don’t want to be unduly critical of this Lambeth Conference, but they really didn’t know what they were doing.”

Channeling George Kennedy in “Cool Hand Luke,” I’ll say that they knew exactly what they were doing.

I agree with Jeffersonian.  They knew.

2 & 3 - this is an honest question.  If “they” knew what they were doing, which indicates they know what will happen, are you saying that they (TEC and ABofC) want a new province declared by the GAFCON primates?  I know they knew they were “kicking it down the road”, but do you really believe they knew what GAFCON will do in the end?      Or am I just confused by your remarks in 2 and 3?

Dee, they knew what they were doing in deciding not to decide.  As far as the consequences there are probably many.

1.  TEC escapes discipline and can continue on its course.

2.  The AC can avoid taking action that creates a formal split in the AC.  They rely on the covenant that will take tens of years to come about, if ever.  If that way they kick the can down the road.

3.  I don’t know what they thought about GAFCON.  They probably hope or think it will either go away never amount to much.

4.  As far as the TEC orthodox are concerned, well they are expendable.

At the risk of kicking a dead horse, whoever organized the Lambeth Conference knew exactly what they were doing, they simply failed.

The “indaba” organization was strictly out of the “Delphi-Alinsky” method leftist playbook, except that the desired conclusion (reflections document) should have been manufactured out of the results of the indaba groups in secrecy, allowing any who disagreed with the result to believe they were in a minority. Instead, all of the comments ( I won’t use the word conclusions) from the indaba groups were compiled willy-nilly into the reflections document.  The only effective spinning of those comments was to give all of them equal weight, instead of allowing greater weight to majority opinion, as a Roberts Rules ordered meeting would have done.
This was simply a colossal failure, explaining why the PB was so peeved at Rowan.  Having accomplished nothing, the revisionists have left GAFCON an open field.

Thanks Br. Michael…..nice to have someone draw me a picture once in awhile.  I knew we were expendable, but I think (or hope) they have misvalued GAFCON.  Again, thanks for ABCing it for me….

That’s why I kept saying the orthodox/reasserting Bishops needed to hijack Lambeth Conference, not stay away.  Have a sit in if necessary under that nice blue tent with the ten foot (eight? Six? whatever) fence until they forced a vote.

Oh, well, who listens to this layperson in North Florida?  Not even my wife! LOL

Peace
Jim E. <><

Libraryjim,
  It is instructive to remember how neatly Rowan eviscerated The Dar el Salaam communique after the HOB meeting last year.  The GAFCON bishops knew that even if they staged a grandstand rebellion and successfully voted for definite action to resolve the communion’s difficulties that in the end, relying on the existing instruments of communion, nothing fruitful would or could be accomplished if Rowan is allowed to run interference.
  Even with their absence the traditionalists outnumbered the progressives, and stymied any revisionism. This way they kept their hands clean, and saved a boatload of cash.

Jim, they did the right thing.  Creedal is right.  There is nothing they could have done at Lambeth.  My belief is that the ABC want’s nothing done because that’s the only way he can avoid a formal split.  As long as the split is informal he can deny it exists.

In the meantime we orthodox need to realise that we need to make our way independant of the AC.

They knew what they were doing but they had no clue as to the consequences. The first tenet of Post Modernism is that “nothing is knowable” (I know if you ask yourself, how do they know that?). As Schori shows “the will to power” is all that happens for her in this world. She and Rowan are Nilhists. She was angry at Rowan because TEC didn’t achieve being released from the moratorium on SSB and sexually active Gay clergy. She would have been happy as a clam if she had gotten that. Instead Lambeth was a waiting for Godot event which is OK for Rowan because HE doesn’t get blamed for breaking up the Communion which is all he cared about anyway (you know it is about social standing, forget history or salvation for these intellectual lightweights).

Well it is interesting - I haven’t seen very many thorough analyses posted after Lambeth however Bishop Wantland’s thoughtful if rather depressing view certainly comes off the wall.

Looking at Lambeth there was an analysis by Dr Radner posted by Dr Harmon last week from the ACI and yesterday another one from Canon Kings at Fulcrum yesterday which suggest that not only is there method but that there is a particular goal which Lambeth intends to achieve so some of the Comcons certainly believe that people both knew what they were doing and further knew the consequences.

Bishop Wantland may be right in that this approach could well be at risk from TEC unwillingness to embrace the first two moratoria and difficulties or impracticability in putting into action the third moratorium which would require the co-operation of TEC and the provinces in putting into place provision under the Pastoral Council for parishes outside TEC and the CCP for parishes within TEC, assuming parishes found these options attractive and viable.

I just wonder whether at this stage there is a very brief window of opportunity for parties to change tracks from the train-wreck we seem to be headed for?

Well, it would have been interesting though. 

Nope, there isn’t!

#14 - you couldn’t be a little more definite could you?

I want to commend Graham Kings article that Pageantmaster referenced on Fulcrum as well as covenant-communion.  It is thoughtful and, I think, reflects a very positive way forward.

I think it is incumbent on the GAFCON folks to work with Dr. Williams’ proposals, abide by the third moratoria in good faith and challenge the American Church to abide by the first two moratoria.  That will go a long way in bringing order back to the Communion and give the GAFCON folks the high ground that they seek and claim.

I concur entirely with Neal. Of course TEC et al will not maintain the first two moratoria. But let the blame for the breakup of the Communion lie at their feet (I should say *our* feet—I’m an Episcopalian) and not at GAFCOM’s. This can only happen if the third moratorium is also honored and the other mechanisms crafted by the Windsor Continuation Group and endorsed by the ABC are embraced and given a full chance to work. If they don’t, then that bridge can be crossed. But it won’t have been for lack of a good faith effort by orthodox Anglicans. I pray from the bottom of my heart that the GAFCON community will take not just the high ground but the holy and humble ground.

RE: “I think it is incumbent on the GAFCON folks to work with Dr. Williams’ proposals, abide by the third moratoria in good faith and challenge the American Church to abide by the first two moratoria.”

I think it is incumbent on Dr. Williams to demonstrate that he won’t sabotage his statements about the WCG, the Pastoral Forum, and the “holding place” for the orthodox—as he did with Dar and the Lambeth invitations— by taking *actions*. 

The ball’s in his court, not Gafcon’s.  They have but to proceed along, with the knowledge that action by Rowan Williams is possible at any moment . . . if he chooses . . .

Gafcon would be foolish to wait—again—as they did until the September 30 bogus deadline [made bogus by one man only].

Dr. Williams is certainly capable of taking action if he likes, and he’s had five years to do so.  But until such time, if I were Gafcon, I’d proceed right along until evidence were forthcoming that the ABC was not going to betray them again.

GAFCON should ignore Graham Kings and all of the ACI and Frulcrum.

Sarah is, of course, completely correct in her assessment.  GAFCON was born of ++Rowan Williams’ inaction and perfidy, an indictment of his failure to lead according to his stated principles.  GAFCON will not stand down until ++Williams not only stands up and leads, but establishes a track record of faithfulness.  And be sure of one thing:  One step back and GAFCON will be back in business.

16 and 17, we have had all of that.  For God’s sake, what more do you want?  The Panzers to cross over from France into Portigual?  No, you are also the enemy.

Going out on a limb, I wouldn’t be surprised if the question of overlapping provinces did come up at the ACC as predicted. I think that when it does the ACC will turn to TEC and ACoC and ask what they’ve done about moritoria. The answer won’t come quickly, but in the end TEC will admit it’d rather do its own thing, ACoC will probably ape TEC, and there will be a recognized orthodox Anglican province in North America as TEC drifts from consensus. That, of course, assumes that the concensus remains some semblance of orthodoxy.
But that’s going out on a limb.

Kendall - I don’t think you sould ever void out any comments on this site.  But I think you should occasionally rebuke such assinine accusations as Rowan Williams is a “nihilist.”

If Dr Williams is serious in what he said in his third Lambeth address he will already have been in contact with the GAFCON primates as he said he would, but the key is not Dr Williams or even GAFCON.  It is and always has been TEC as far as I can see.  Will they seize the opportunity to restore their relationships or either freeze in the headlights or continue with the same old failed stratagems.  The clock is ticking.

#6 I’m afraid Rowan didn’t know the Indaba result was meant to be scripted.

Remember, never ascribe something to a conspiracy which can be accounted for by shear incompetence.
regards,
Jon R

#18 But, haven’t the TEC and the Canadians already said they will not stop their actions?  How many breaches doe’s it take for Gafcon to be justified in forming a new communion.  Get real, most Anglicans have loyalty to their parish church, rather than some amorphous blob of a thing called the Anglican communion.  True, they like to be thought of as CoE or Anglican, but anything above the ‘nice’ Bishop who visits occasionally is a pure abstraction for most.  One would love to think this is because their relationship with Christ is foremost, but sadly habit is often the main reason.
Jon R
p.s. Yes I know I sound cynical, but after all, I used to be a parish priest.

Thanks for linking to my ‘Patience and Urgency’ article, Pageantmaster, and for the comments above - though Br Michael #21 is surely inappropriate in using the word ‘enemy’ of Neal in Dallas and Dan Martins. If you think like that, then follow the Master and love your enemy…

It was good to have a long discussion with you, Sarah, during the Lambeth Conference, and I found that helpful. Thanks for your comments at #  18. I really think that Rowan Williams is very serious indeed in engaging with GAFCON Primates and that the need for urgency is appreciated. Let’s pray.

I’d value your further comments on ‘Patience and Urgency’, Sarah.

Graham Kings,  I am sorry if I shocked you, but the word “enemy” was deliberately chosen after much thought and prayer.  And in fact it caught your attention and hopefully will cause some thought on your part why you might be seen as the “enemy”.  The orthodox in the USA and Canada are under brutal assault assault and persecution.  Not only are you doing nothing to help you are aiding our persecutors.  How then should we think of you?  What is going on is not nice.  These types of splits never are.  But from where many of us sit, if you are not doing the stoning you are at least holding the garments.  What you are doing has profound consequences for us and you should not expect our gratitude.

Br Michael, #28. Thanks. From your perspective you may think that ACI and Fulcrum and Covenant are doing ‘nothing to help’ the orthodox in the USA and Canada, however a huge amount is being done openly and privately. The Communion Partners plan (mentioned warmly in the Concluding Presidential Address at Lambeth) and the Pastoral Forum have great potential.

Matt Kennedy and others on Stand Firm have spoken out against people pursuing an ‘outside track’ calling those pursuing an ‘inside track’ the enemy. Listen to them - and I’d value your engagement, as well as Sarah’s, with the discussion offered in Patience and Urgency.

Maybe, Kendall, we could have a thread on this?

Br Michael, “aiding our persecutors”?  I’m wary of this victimhood language—not least because there is non-metaphorical “brutal assault” going on elsewhere, e.g. remember the Sudanese bishops talking at Lambeth about how some of them are actually dying amidst the Communion’s conflicts. 

I, for one, have become much more intentional in my charity towards those pursuing the “outside” track in Communion life; certainly that’s in large part because I’m not one of them, being part of the Diocese of Fort Worth.  But I would remind you of the consistent calls from those running this blog and Stand Firm not to demonize other strategies in the conservative or “orthodox” wing. 

Think and pray again, and try being silent for a while.

Correction to #30:  meant to say, I am one of them (the “outside” strategy sort).

I disagree with Br. Michael about Neal and Dan being “the enemy.”  Both of those priests are fantastic people, and also allies on the inside.

As I’ve pointed out in another comment thread—it *is* true that when the “outside strategy” has some successes they are often damaging to the “inside strategy” and when the “inside strategy” has some successes they are often damaging to the “outside strategy”—but good successes for friends are always good things, not bad things, even if their results are damaging to another.  That’s the way life is.

I do disagree with Neal and Dan—as I mentioned above—but why on earth a disagreement about tactics and strategy would make them “the enemy” I have no idea. 

I also do not agree that Gafcon should “ignore Graham Kings and all of the ACI and Frulcrum” any more than I think that “Graham Kings and all of the ACI and Frulcrum” should ignore Gafcon.  I hope that none of the above ignores one another, although certainly one can listen carefully and respectfully and them move along with one’s strategy. 

Normally I agree with Brother Michael but today he seems to have taken a number of caffeine pills [just kidding, Br. Michael!] and that has caused him to make a clean sweep of every conceivable non-Gafcon friend he could lay his hands on.  ; > )

Pageantmaster, the reason why no one counts TEC leaders as the linchpin or the hinge is because their responses are foregone conclusions.  Of all the parties in this church war, they [815, et al] are the very least likely to change or budge one inch.  So nobody ever considers them when it comes to choices.  They’ve made theirs.

I am truly sorry for the very real persecution to which Br Michael refers.  It is to our shame as a church and as a Communion.

However I would sincerely hope that Canon Kings would not countenance anything of the sort and am grateful for his participation here and for his assistance with his views of what is going on following Lambeth which I found thought-provoking.  It is only with engaging with views from other parts of the Communion that I hope to try to understand what is going on.

#32 Thanks Sarah - you are probably right but in my lifetime I’ve seen the Berlin wall demolished and the Iron Curtain rust away - hope springing eternal and all that, even if it does involve a church!

Sarah,
Everyone has bad days in posting.  I’ve had a few (and have saved the emails from The Elves to prove it), and often just responded off the cuff. Actually, what I suspect I did (and suspect Br. Michael did, too) is let my true feelings out and abandoned any pretense of politeness.  This happens most often when a) I’m tired, b) coming down with a flu or cold and c) have just been insulted by other posters on the ‘opposing team’ once too often or heard their ‘party line’ a bit too much.

More often than not, it’s an inconsequential post that triggers that reaction, and like family conflict, is unwarranted.

Note: I am not apologizing FOR Br. Michael, just saying I understand him and his ‘testy’ posting.

Peace
Jim E. <><

I have been following the comments on Graham’s reflections on this blog, at Covenant-Communion, and at Fulcrum with interest.  I’m particularly struck by Sarah’s reflection in #32 above that people with a particular set of tactics may, when they have some success, end up hurting their natural allies who follow another set of tactics.  In such a case, the proper military analogy would be that the injured party has not been attacked by an “enemy” (pace Br. Michael, #21) but has come under “friendly fire.”  Unfortunately, the effect may be the same, but the cause is indeed different.

I am also concerned, with Sam in #30, with the language of victimization employed by both sides, which does nothing but allow the self-anointed victim to feel self-justified in employing whatever tactics the victim sees fit against the victimizer.  This is not to deny that people are being harmed and are subject to violence.  I am simply saying that the response to being a “victim” seems to lead to the perpetuation of violence (a cycle of revenge and “vindication”), as opposed, say, to the language of martyrdom, which leads to nonviolent witness and Christlike love of one’s enemies.  It’s much easier to be a victim than a martyr, though.  And let’s face it:  Wouldn’t we all rather be winners?  By the powers and principalities of this world, the way that victims become winners is through violence and revenge.  But in the Kingdom of God, the way that martyrs become winners is through self-giving and (dare I say it?) forgiveness.  I could go on, but I won’t…to the relief of many, I’m sure.

On a final note, readers of Graham’s piece may also be interested in my own reflections on the theme of “intensification” here. 

Nathan Humphrey+

JonReinert wrote (in #25)

Remember, never ascribe something to a conspiracy which can be accounted for by shear incompetence.

Actually, I was ascribing the Lambeth result to an incompetent conspiracy.

Graham King, and all I will apologize for my use of the word “enemy”.  It was too harsh.  And I think I will take Sam Keys advice and remain silent for a while.

Nevertheless, I think that the ACI/Fulcrum stratgy works to the advantage of TEC.  The AC has really done nothing in the past ten years and I don’t think it will start now.  TEC simply continues on its way.  I firmly believe at the end of the day that the covenant, the Communion Partners plan and the Pastoral Forum will amount to nothing.  They will be just like the Council of Advice and DEPO.

Thanks, Br Michael for #38 and Sam, Sarah, Pageantmaster (cool name) and Nathan for your comments.

Over at Fulcrum here, Adrian Worsfold (aka Pluralist) and Ephraim Radner have commented and engaged with each other’s discussion. Adrian Worsfold posted a long comment on his ‘Pluralist speaks’ site here.

Robert Pigott, religion correspondent of the BBC, published two articles on the BBC site - summing up the Lambeth Conference, ‘Two-Tiered Communion’ and ‘Daring the Extremes to Leave’ - here.

Thanks, Sarah, for your new article on Stand Firm, ‘Interesting Discussions Going On Over at Fulcrum & T19’ which links into your article, ‘The Post-Lambeth Anglican Communion’, my ‘Patience and Urgency’, the Fulcrum discussion on it and this T19 thread.

Very helpful linking of various discussions.  Virtual interdependence…?

In general, I concur with Bp Wantland’s bleak view of Lambeth.  The conference produced a mere extra-procedural collection of reflections of the participants, and one instrument’s unilateral (i.e., non-conciliar) acts and statements.  This is simply too insubstantial. 

In some of the other pieces of analysis, there is a nearly complete absence of consideration of the basic procedural status of the communion.  Where are we procedurally?  In violation of accepted rules of order, one instrument of communion (the ABC) subverted the deliberative act (DES) of a second instrument (the Primates Meeting) to enforce a resolution of third instrument (Lambeth 98), which third instrument had authorized the second instrument to do so. 

This is important context because (a) the Windsor Continuation Group was unilaterally appointed by the ABC, when it was the Primates Meeting that requested the Windsor Report; (b) there were no resolutions at Lambeth - the non-deliberative and extra-procedural reflections of the conference are necessarily of less stature than resolutions; (c) without deliberation or the production of a record/minutes, notions of majority or general support for moritoria are anecdotal at best.

The ABC has created a very unstable foundation for his proposals. 

#39 Dr Kings
‘cool name’ - thank you - I like it.

Having read your article you seem [where I struggled to see] a clear roadmap laid out.

Assuming for the moment that this is the case that there is a clear roadmap and that there is the will at Lambeth Palace to put it in place, what confidence can one have that it is realistic for anyone to rely on this in making their decisions? 

You will see that Sarah at #32 takes me to task saying that “Of all the parties in this church war, they [815, et al] are the very least likely to change or budge one inch.”  Do you see any prospect that the Episcopal Church of the USA will co-operate with the bringing into being of any of the proposals made at Lambeth for a Pastoral Forum, Communion Partners initiative, Canon Law recommendations of the Windsor Continuation Group or the Covenant? 

Do you believe there is anything concrete in prospect which can be held out to those making decisions?

Realistically, I think that GAFCON/CC should work with the WCG proposals and Rowan Williams (“gentle as doves” per Neal and Graham) but do so in a way that is “wise as serpents” (per Sarah). 

We have Bob Duncan’s letter out now in which he says that it is not possible nor reasonable for the soon-to-be departing dioceses to cancel their seperation votes.  I think that this could be side-stepped (e.g. by voting down the changes, and then voting again on a first reading for changes for next year - just in case) except that KJS’s campaign against Duncan in September has likely ended any hope for temporary reconciliation.

But what I would recommend GAFCON/CC to do is to say “very well, Rowan, here is what we understand the WCG plan to entail (and be very clear what the realistic expectations are).  You set up this up, and once it is set up and operational we will follow it in good faith provided it does what it is supposed to do.  Until it is set up, or if it is in any way undermined or sabatoged, we will continue as we have been.”

Ideally, I would love to see Duncan et.al. publically declare that they will call for their dioceses to reject the second vote changes provided that KJS’s attempted deposition is dropped, with a view towards the WCG plan being implemented and carried forward.

This will not only give GAFCON the “high ground”, it will also give GAFCON a huge political advantage within the Communion.  If TEC is seen to be the one that is refusing the moratoria, but GAFCON is taking serious steps to honor the moratoria, then Rowan will be trapped by his own rhetoric into acting.  The key question is will Rowan actually set up the WCG plan so that it has substance?  Because if he does, and if GAFCON cooperate, then the conservatives will have won the Communion and TEC will be on the outs.

I agree with jamesw.  And, no, I don’t expect 815 to budge one inch.  That makes it all the more important for the GAFCON folks to take the high ground of seeking the protection that +Rowan has offered.

If I were +Bob Duncan and +Jack Iker and +John-David Schofield I would send a registered letter immediately to +Rowan and all the Primates and every member of the WCG seeking protection of this Faith and Order Commission, requesting a letter to +Katharine to that effect, and if nothing is forthcoming within a certain time frame then to write an open letter to be published on whichever blog will publish it outlining the good faith efforts that they have attempted and whether +Rowan or the head of the WCG came to their aid, as well as what the result by +Katharine and her people was.

RE: “If I were +Bob Duncan and +Jack Iker and +John-David Schofield I would send a registered letter immediately to +Rowan and all the Primates and every member of the WCG seeking protection of this Faith and Order Commission . . . “

Neal, I am aghast.

They already did this . . . with the Panel of Reference.  Remember all the “good faith efforts” that dioceses and parishes made with that?

They already did this . . . with the appeal for APO.

They already did this . . . with the acceptance of the Dar communique.

Why on earth would they think that *anything different after five years of this* would happen now?

Please help me to understand why they should think that there will be anything at all different from the various processes.

It honestly feels as if I have stepped into the Twilight Zone . . . with everybody pretending as if we are still back in 2003.  Or 2005.  Or 2006.

We’re not,

It’s August of 2008—after the Lambeth Conference.  All the TEC bishops came to Lambeth.  They now have another ten years . . . to do as they please.

The idea that anything will be staved off by a re-run of the past five years simply boggles the mind.

Sarah,
In my mind, the difference is the Lambeth Conference that just concluded.  Dr. Williams now has the “moral authority” through the comments of the bishops to do this very thing.  Of course, I am disappointed that he did not reconvene the primates and get this thing resolved.  However, I can understand that he views his primary source of authority from the bishops.  He now has that authority to move forward.  I say give him this opportunity.  The alternative is the fracturing of the Communion into various pockets of Anglican-ish relationships with no real claim to apostolic order by anyone.

The Lambeth Conference conducted no business as a deliberative body.  This seems to be a difficult concept.  Nothing official was accomplished.  There is merely a collection of reflections, much like an informal or unscientific survey.  I do not understand why this collection, or unilateral statements by the ABC, are given such great weight.  Certainly this collection does not rise to the level of a resolution, such as Res. 1.10 of LC ‘98.  There are rules of order that prescribe how business is done.

The merits of the conference appears to be, as one might say, in the eyes of the beholder.

47. Neal in Dallas

the difference is the Lambeth Conference that just concluded.  Dr. Williams now has the “moral authority” through the comments of the bishops to do this very thing.

Lambeth provided no such thing.  It produced a vacuous collection of contradictory statements.  RW can use that collection to justify any action he wants.  But he will have as a result no greater legitimacy now then he did before Lambeth.  The Reflections simply do not carry the authority of the bishops.  If you think they do, then please tell me what the bishops authoritatively decided?

If RW acts post-Lambeth, he will act with no more legitimacy than he possessed pre-Lambeth.

carl

Both Bishop Wantland and Sarah have been around this for a long time and it is hard to argue that this has not all been seen before.

However, if along with all the information passing back and forth between Canterbury and New York there has been any willingness expressed to work with what was put forward at the conference, now is probably the time to declare it.  Otherwise the will continue to be and people will assume it to be continuing.

Is there anybody there?

errata: for “will” in the last sentence, read “wreck”

Thanks, Kendall, for creating a new thread on ‘Patience and Urgency’ here - it may help to continue these discussions on that thread.