Rather understated: “To try to use a supposedly baptismal theology to overturn the universal Christian tradition of the meaning of baptism is a bold move. Most theologians will think that the first argument above (the proposal of an ‘identity’) is not strong enough to justify it.”

We are having some format and version problems. We hope to get the correct form up asap. Thanks.

I for one find this statement not merely immensely helpful as an unpacking of +RDW’s reflections but also quite encouraging. The latter because Bishop Wright recognizes both the way forward, clearly following on the principles laid out in Archbishop Williams’s response, and the urgency of action.

“The obvious way to do this is to declare that ‘Track One’ is open, right away, to Covenant signatories, and only Covenant signatories.”

I thank Bishop Wright for the cogency and clarity and most of all for the pastoral sensitivity of his comments. He, as they say, gets it. He knows how long mainstream Anglicans in TEC and elsewhere have been waiting for something sensible to come down the pike. And he knows how frustrated they are by the prospect of waiting many more years—or, regretfully, leaving.

And I cannot help thinking that, while we certainly cannot take Bishop Wright’s words as bearing the imprimatur of Cantuar himself, we can at least presume that telephone conversations have occurred. It may be important to remember that in the C of E there are bishops and then there are bishops. And there is normally a great deal of communication and conferring among the top four: Canterbury, York, London, and Durham. Any of the last three, for example, is always normally seen (barring age problems) as a possibility for succession to Canterbury. I don’t, to put it another way, see anything in Bishop Wright’s closely reasoned statement that Abp Williams could say he’s definitely at odds with.

So, for the sake of clarity and indeed credibility, I say, with more hope than I’ve had in some time, Fare forward!

Good article.  It’s about 6 years too late and covers the same ground that led to the ACNA, it’s just with different people this time.  For me the key paragraph is this:

How do ‘Communion Partners’ sign on? (i) The question presses, then, as in the ABC’s paragraph 25, as to how dioceses, parishes and individuals within TEC will be able to sign the Covenant and thus not only align themselves, but be recognised by the wider Communion as aligning themselves, with that wider Communion itself. As the ABC says, ‘there should be a clear answer to this question’, and actually the ABC himself is now the main person, if not the only person, in a position to give a clear and authoritative answer. He is certainly here referring to the ‘Communion Partner’ bishops, and to the parishes and individuals who take the line they do. (ii) The Anaheim Statement: We are here faced with a particular question: what now happens in between what TEC has said and done and what the ‘Anaheim Statement’ of CP Bishops and others indicates? Some reports indicate that bishops who voted with the majority are now realising the predicament they’ve put themselves in and are beginning to sign up to Anaheim instead. It may be that the Anaheim Statement will become a rallying point around which more may gather than had initially been supposed. (iii) What about Parishes and Individuals? But here’s the problem: it is one thing for bishops and their dioceses to be ‘Communion Partners’, recognised by Lambeth and the wider Communion as full ‘Track One’ members. (That carries its own problems, but if the diocese is the primary unity, as the ABC has insisted, it is clearly possible.) It isn’t so clear how that would work for parishes, let alone for individuals. But a way must be found. The now largely discredited ‘DEPO’ system (‘Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight’) may have been a signpost, albeit one that didn’t seem to be capable of working well, towards some kind of a solution. Granted, the Covenant will provide some kind of a line in the sand. (iv) Getting from Here to There: But how a parish in a non-signing diocese, or an individual in a non-signing parish or diocese, can become a ‘Track One’ Anglican, recognised as such globally, remains to be seen. Many in that position neither want nor intend to join a movement like ACNA, nor should they be put in a position where they have no other option. We may need some interim structures to get us from where we are to where we need to be – and not only in TEC, but also in Canada and perhaps elsewhere. But we need these now, not in six months let alone six years. The Communion Partner bishops should perhaps restate their willingness to provide, with the permission of the relevant Diocesan, alternative oversight for parishes in Dioceses whose bishops might find their relation to the wider Communion to have changed. Issues of polity should, if possible, be dealt with at a provincial, not a global, level.

The implementation of this paragraph depends on two thing:

1.  Action by the ABC.  Yet he has shown himself over and over again as incapable of action.
2.  Some form of acquiescence by TEC.  Yet TEC is fighting for its existence and it will not agree to any covenant or action by its parts that threaten that.

If any of these fine words are to mean anything then a way must be found to MAKE THEM HAPPEN without further delay and dithering.  The TEC has shown no hesitancy bending and breaking the rules to its advantage.  Without going that far, the ABC and others can sculpt ambiguity and action in favor of the orthodox.  The ABC can flat out say that he no longer recognizes TEC as being in communion with him.  Likewise the Primates.  The ACC can be left to twist in the wind.  Otherwise ACNA, in the face of AC inaction. remains the only realistic game in town.

Bp Wright said: “his delaying tactic – twelve years from 2003, when the crisis really began! – must be seen for what it is, and headed off.”

Please excuse my ongoing frustration, but this is what I have been saying since 2003.  It was very clear from the beginning that this was the premier TEC tactic, and they made this very clear at the 2003 GenCon.  It was said loudly in many venues in many specific phrasings: “Those conservatives will wail and yell in the short term, and then they will run out of steam and eventually give up and either walk away or relax into compliance with GenCon decisions.  Either way, we win”

I am not saying that this is good, desirable or inevitable.  I am simply quoting what I heard being said.  It was said out loud by many people.  I have been quoting it continually for 6 years.

I have never considered the well-being of the church to be “game.”  However, the off-the-cliff left wing of the church has been using a well thought out “game-plan.”  Construct a game plan with progressive (no pun) steps leading to a particular end game, and you will get what you want—in this case the so-called “full inclusion agenda.”  Follow it, and you win.

Unfortunately, too many people, the ACI and the ABC among them—have imputed a sense of “fair play” to people simply intent on winning.  They have bought into an endless war of words that allowed the game-plan to continue.  This has brought us to where we are now. 

As long as the orthodox keep engaging the game-plan, it can continue along the designed lines to the desired end-game.

Sorry for yelling, but now that Bp Wright has pointed this out, perhaps my voice can add some small point to his.

The only way not to lose completely this whole battle (“little stone bridges” and all) is to end it a different way.

That is— to bring the seemingly unending process to a completely different end which requires ending before the full end-game plan is won.

Sorry for yelling, but I cannot fathom why this is so hard for some people to grasp and face.

So far, we have pretty much been engaging the game-plan exactly the way the other side has predicted and desired.  It is plain to see; it should be no surprise.  We have played right into their hands.  We either walk away or attempt to keep the illusion alive that we can live in safe little bubbles in “orthodox” dioceses while the game plan rolls along to its inevitable conclusion.  The orthodox resist for a while within their own geography (No border crossings, boys!!) until they die, move on to other denominations and structures, stop participating in any church at all or just give up.  And TEC becomes a “Full Inclusion Church”!  How can we doubt this when we are already half-way there?

Robert Munday’s (sourced in Elliot) “Not with a bang but a whimper”  is a most apt description of this very end.

Sarah, my dear, I really hope you are reading this.  Here is your “third way”:  Make a full-court press to force an end to the game now.  Covenant or not—no half-way measures—TEC in or out, and therefore most likely out.

And if not.

Next year in Jerusalem!  GAFCon without Canterbury or TEC, but the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ intact.  Perhaps a “Full Inclusion TEC” is the judgement of God upon us all.

“Choose this day whom you will serve; as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

The Rev’d Ellen C. Neufeld, ordained 15 years, priest in good standing Diocese of Albany, and the deputy who shook the dust off her sandals.

And I find especially interesting Bishop Wright’s concern not simply with finding a way for “Communion Partner” Bishops/Dioceses to continue with integrity in “Track One” Communion life, but also for clergy, congregations, even “individuals.”  How these kinds of relationships can be structured to include but also to transcend direct ecclesial boundaries will be a complicated question, obviously, but one that will need to find a substantive answer . . . .

Bruce Robison

Excellent article…I just wonder if it is too late.

#3—I can assure you there was full discussion of this statement, beyond +Durham’s own office. But also, with apologies, please know that this is not the final draft. We are working to correct that. I suspect the error is my own, as can be the case when several hands are at work in editing, etc. I guess I should be thankful it does not happen more often. ACI has no full time staff help, and our web man is busy with church work, bless him. CRS

Actually, Bruce #6, the answer is pretty simple, once your denomination stops the lawsuits and depositions.

When the proper version appears, you will know this by the consecutively numbered paragraphs.

“#3—I can assure you there was full discussion of this statement, beyond +Durham’s own office.”

Good.

What a fantastic piece! Thank you Bishop Wright, Dr Seitz et al.

While it is acknowledged that uncomfortable questions remain in re: who is to be in Communion, I very much appreciate these lines, coming as they do from Wright/Fulcrum/ACI:

  ... though the situation on the ground is often confused, ACNA has expressed a clear willingness to work with the Communion Partner bishops towards whatever greater good may come. And ACNA itself has shown itself eager to sign the Covenant when it is complete. All this will go into the melting pot of whatever new alignments the Communion will discover over the coming months. It is important that bridges, not fences, be built during this period.

May said bridges be built.

#11—my point being only that with important documents like this, no one wants to surprize one another. The collegiality and courtesy amongst CoE Bishops is of an altogether different order, in my experience, than what obtains in our ‘every state with its own flag/flower/song’ Episcopal Church. Obviously we are in a very intense period, and Archbishop Rowan’s statement is going to have a major impact. We have come down to the wire, it appears. The question is what God brings forth from this.

I find the “two relevant moratoria” rather puzzling. If I recall there were five moratoria, all but one rejected at GC 2009.

1. No more bishops in same sex relationships—rejected.

2. No more priests and deacons—rejected (actually, never implemented).

3. No more blessings of same sex relationships—rejected (actually never implemented).

4. No more lawsuits—rejected (actually never implemented and $7 million appropriated to pay for them in the next triennium).

5. No more “border crossings”—the only one actually accepted by TEC, and TEC’s propaganda notwithstanding, the border crossings have pretty much ended with the formation of ACNA.

#5, LumenChristie,

I really believe that this is not a time for us to say “I told you so.” Mutual recriminations have to cease… they serve no purpose in moving forward as a Communion. And I write this as someone within an ACNA church.

As I suggested in a thread earlier this week, the “two-track” language might be more usefully termed “core and cloud.” The Archbishop suggests that substantial elements of the existing Anglican Communion (certainly provinces, probably dioceses, and perhaps parishes and individuals) can remain together in a core group that retains theological and institutional continuity with the pre-2003 body. This core Anglican Communion could adopt a covenant relationship of mutual submission to one another and to renewed Instruments of Communion.

Around this core, we already see a cloud of provinces, dioceses, parishes, and individuals who self-identify with Anglicanism, but who may be unwilling to undertake all the obligations of membership in the core group. These groups are developing networks of bilateral intercommunion and ministry agreements. TEC, for example, is strengthening its ties with other LGBT-friendly institutions elsewhere within the Anglican world. Sydney is doing the same with groups that might support lay administration of Holy Communion. Other networks may form around attitudes to sacramental theology or the ordination of women.

TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada are clearly on the move from within the core into the cloud. Some of the large Global South provinces seem to be moving in the same ecclesiological direction. They have adopted the cloud model by revising their constitutions to de-emphasize a relation to the Anglican core and replace it with the ability to join into networks and bilateral arrangements that ignore core institutions. The AMiA was an early example of such an arrangement. (The ACNA is currently within the cloud, but includes some who would like to move into the core.)

I see the statement by Archbishop Williams as recognizing the inevitability of the continued transition of Anglicanism from a Communion model to a core-and-cloud model. He is determined to salvage as large and as unified a core group as may be, and to maintain charity to the maximum degree possible between those who choose to remain in the core and those who are moving to the cloud.

I am reminded of the following message from President Lincoln to General George McClellan:

Major General McClellan.

My dear Sir.

Your despatches complaining that you are not properly sustained, while they do not offend me, do pain me very much.

Blencker’s Division was withdrawn from you before you left here; and you knew the pressure under which I did it, and, as I thought, acquiesced in it—certainly not without reluctance.

After you left, I ascertained that less than twenty thousand unorganized men, without a single field battery, were all you designed to be left for the defence of Washington, and Manassas Junction; and part of this even, was to go to Gen. Hooker’s old position. Gen. Banks’ corps, once designed for Manassas Junction, was diverted, and tied up on the line of Winchester and Strausburg, and could not leave it without again exposing the upper Potomac, and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. This presented, (or would present, when McDowell and Sumner should be gone) a great temptation to the enemy to turn back from the Rappahanock, and sack Washington. My explicit order that Washington should, by the judgment of all the commanders of Army corps, be left entirely secure, had been neglected. It was precisely this that drove me to detain McDowell.

I do not forget that I was satisfied with your arrangement to leave Banks at Mannassas junction; but when that arrangement was broken up, and nothing was substituted for it, of course I was not satisfied. I was constrained to substitute something for it myself. And now allow me to ask “Do you really think I should permit the line from Richmond, via Mannassas Junction, to this city to be entirely open, except what resistance could be presented by less than twenty thousand unorganized troops?” This is a question which the country will not allow me to evade.

There is a curious mystery about the number of the troops now with you. When I telegraphed you on the 6th. saying you had over a hundred thousand with you, I had just obtained from the Secretary of War, a statement, taken as he said, from your own returns, making 108,000 then with you, and en route to you. You now say you will have but 85,000, when all en route to you shall have reached you. How can the discrepancy of 23,000 be accounted for?

As to Gen. Wool’s command, I understand it is doing for you precisely what a like number of your own would have to do, if that command was away.

I suppose the whole force which has gone forward for you, is with you by this time; and if so, I think it is the precise time for you to strike a blow. By delay the enemy will relatively gain upon you—that is, he will gain faster, by fortifications and reinforcements, than you can by reinforcements alone.

And once more let me tell you, it is indispensable to you that you strike a blow. I am powerless to help this. You will do me the justice to remember I always insisted, that going down the Bay in search of a field, instead of fighting at or near Mannassas, was only shifting, and not surmounting, a difficulty—that we would find the same enemy, and the same, or equal, intrenchments, at either place. The country will not fail to note—is now noting—that the present hesitation to move upon an entrenched enemy, is but the story of Manassas repeated.

I beg to assure you that I have never written you, or spoken to you, in greater kindness of feeling than now, nor with a fuller purpose to sustain you, so far as in my most anxious judgment, I consistently can.But you must act.

Yours very truly,

A. Lincoln

Fast-rider # 15, Dr Seitz,  et al.

This is NOT about saying “I told you so.”  Making MY point is not why I post here.  If all you got out of the points I have been trying to make is that, then once again, I have failed my attempt.

I believe it is the “uncouth” way in which I express myself which causes me to be so pointedly ignored.  Congratulations all around on a really nicely constructed paper.

Call me Tom Paine to their Benjamin Franklin.  Both were needed for the Revolution to be won.  Without the expression of passion, the well constructed points can’t make a whole lot of difference.  I know that +Durham and the good Dr Seitz have passion for the church.  Some of us, sans connections in the halls of power, have been out on the front lines and have less patience with erudition.

I find it fascinating to read these postings in which the civilized academic discussion continues.

C. S. Lewis said it best in one of his essays.  When academics grasp a concept, they think they have got “the thing.”  The Christian life demands action.  We continue to discuss concepts when action was required 6 years ago.  We are not going to talk our way out of this no matter how fine the phrases.

If this be treason, make the most of it.

Ands thanks, Br Michael.  Lincoln was also famously heard to comment: 
“If General McClellan does not wish to make use of the Army of the Potomac, perhaps he will let me borrow it.”

Indeed, Br. Michael.  And didn’t Gen. McLellan respond with something like this?

My Dear Mr. President,

Thank you so much for your kind note.  Of course I share so many of your concerns; but whether the number of forces presently available to me is 108,000 or 85,000 may not be the primary question.  Instead, I judge that, perhaps, the rebels have not fully considered how they may have ruffled the bonds of affection among us as countrymen; naturally, I cannot support what they’ve done, at least not without far more discussion between us and them – nay, but we are all of us, “us!”  But what I instead propose is that the enemy be engaged by means of what I call a “covenant process” – which resolution can be confidently expected to keep us bound in at least a loose family by no later than 1885 …

Please keep on topic on this thread - Elf.

#9 Phil,
With thanks.  Just for you to know, my position is now and has been that the two parties should avoid the courts and negotiate a settlement with a view to the greatest degree possible of sustaining the viability of ministry of local congregations while conforming to state law and allowing Trustees and Authorities in all judicatories to comply with their canonical duties.  I don’t think that would be an easy task, and I know that there are folks on both sides who resist the idea that there is significant but not entire validity to the initial position of the other.  But we won’t know if it could happen if we don’t try it.
Bruce Robison

21, with respect, the point being made is on topic.  The words must be accompanied by action and that rapidly.  Otherwise all we have is a continuation of words.  All we have had for years has been words.  If in the final analysis no action can be taken, then what is the point?

And Fr. Robison, it takes two to negotiate.  If one side, TEC, does not want to then that’s that.

Dear Elves:  as Br Michael said, the references to Gen. McClellan are making an analogy.

McClellan was an expert at training, but could never bring himself to deploy.

Point taken?

# 3 said: “I thank Bishop Wright for the cogency and clarity and most of all for the pastoral sensitivity of his comments. He, as they say, gets it. He knows how long mainstream Anglicans in TEC and elsewhere have been waiting for something sensible to come down the pike.”

Six years is too long a wait.  While the conferences continue, “at the top” as you put it, the folks on the “bottom” are continuing to be confused and damaged.

Yes.

The main point of the bishop of Durham is that this can’t go on indefinitely, and something must be done.  “Pastoral sensitivity” means giving primary consideration to the people in the pew.

But will the people wedded to keeping the conversation going while the TEC-no-crats keep acting be able to be effective?

#4 Makes the point in response to the ABC and this article, both are thoughtful and suggestive, but as #4 writes…now is time for action in leadership and not mere suggestions and philosophy.  It is pathetic that after such an important response by the ABC even folks like Bp Wright have to wonder and guess what the heck he meant and wonder if he will ever actually do anything.  Can we not expect some actual leadership in the Anglican Communion?

JVJ:  Hear!  Hear!

As one who has retired from the full-time fray to assist in a traditionalist parish that is no longer part of TEC – whilst myself remaining canonically resident in the Diocese of South Carolina and active there on behalf of Mere Anglicanism – may I just express heartfelt gratitude to ACI, Fulcrum, and in particular Bishop Tom Wright for their cogent and timely “Unpacking” of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own recent “Reflections”?  I especially give thanks for the eirenic and encouraging words about “bridge building” in reference to ACNA, the Communion Partners, and the Communion at large during this time of re-alignment.

Does it say something that the ABC requires a translator to “unpack” his words?  Is that not by itself evidence of failure of leadership (or a complete understanding of what leadership is)?  We should be obliged to Bp Wright that he so charitably trying to help Rowan out.  But were he clear, as a leader ought to be, there would be no need for such translation.

#28-

Welcome to Panther City Father.

BigTex AC

I hate say this, but the language relating to the ACNA is awkward - and understandably so. By acknowledging that TEC has and is walking apart from the Communion, how can you, then, argue that the ANCA is separate from the Communion (unless you ignore the FCA’s primates solution which led to the creation of the ANCA in the first place)? I do understand that places the CP in awkward position vis a vis ACNA, but let’s not pretend or suggest that it is the ANCA which is standing in ambiguous position in the communion. Clearly if you follow the Logic of +Wright and + Cantuar relating to TEC,  then it leads to the conclusion that the ACNA is standing precisely where it should be -  standing within the AC.

I read this letter as a very polite note from Bishop Wright to Rowan Williams saying “your reflection was great for what it is, but what we really need is some leadership NOW!  Not 6 months from now, but NOW!  If you don’t provide it, the Communion comes apart.  I realize that leadership is not your strong suit, so here are some suggestions you might want to follow.  But you must act, and act within days, not months, or you can kiss the Anglican Communion good-bye.”

I recall great discussion over Rowan Williams’ response to TEC at Dar Es Salaam which someone identified as “over acceptance” or some such thing.  The point being that you praise what was done and then try to redirect it it into a new trajectory in hopes that the original speaker will then follow this new trajectory.  I think that this is what Wright is doing.

Sort of like a family who is in a movie theater when someone shouts fire.  The dad panics and runs towards the door, leaving his wife and kids behind.  He yells out “I need to escape!  I need to escape!”  You then say “Yes, of course, he says he needs to escape.  And so he does.  What a very wise course of action to take in such a situation.  But, of course, by saying that he needs to escape, he most certainly also plans to retrieve his wife and children and escape together!” in hopes that the father will realize his duty and return to save his wife and children.

The Good Ship Anglican isn’t going to move an inch if all we do is continue to put more steam whistles on the bloody thing while TGC drills holes in the hull.

I do not think that I saw anything in Bishop Wright’s unpacking about the ABC’s reflections on prejudice toward gay and lesbian persons and the call for repentance?  Did I miss a part of Bishop Wright’s interpretation?  Or, was the ABC so clear on that point that no unpacking was needed?

“Core and cloud” reminds me of our own Supreme Court in one of its more famous cases coining the term “penumbras and emanations” from the U.S. Constitution - if the “core” is the Gospel, what is the “cloud”?

Paragraphs 5 & 10 seem pretty clear to me, #34.  Do you think they need expansion?

The Anaheim Statement may be useful but Wright fails to note that among those who signed are supporters of the resolutions and otherwise unsupportive of, if not hostile to, evangelicals.

Just as the actions of GenCon09 brought final clarity, N.T. Wright’s followup to the ABC’s comments provide emerging clarity about Canterbury Anglicanism. The infection is much deeper than I wanted to admit. Does ACNA really want to be a part of Canterbury Anglicanism or is it time for the Global South to find a new center for Anglicanism?

In the newest version of this letter there seems to be some edits suggesting that many people would not want to be involved in an ACNA solution and that ACNA is a ‘would-be Anglican Church’.

These edits seem to contradict the idea of building bridges and not fences…who at ACI got this edit past Bishop Wright and into this letter I wonder?

ACI seems to have some consternation about ACNA that in these current times is counter productive to what we are all trying to achieve…it is important to keep our collective eyes on the larger ball, and not succumb to old and petty disagreements.

Faithful Departed,
I agree wholeheartedly. I used the phrase - awkward language. But the entire trajectory of their argument leads to the ANCA’s position vis a vis TEC.  I’m starting to appreciate the validity of the post -colonial language used in reference to the ACNA/FCA’s development.

# 38 I was referring to these words from the ABC, which paragraphs 5 and 10 do not seem to address:

“Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so.”

Listen to LumenChristie, people, she has said something important.  Some people in the pews are being damaged, and some others, sensing the danger, are getting out of those pews and into some others such as RC ones to escape the experience or the prospect of spiritual damage.  It was perfectly clear to me that her comment was not intended as any sort of ‘I told you so’. 
#29, are you kidding - have you never looked at L’Osservatore for example?  There are numerous Catholics who make entire careers of explaining to the laity what the Pope’s or another bishop’s statements are saying to the Church.  This is a good idea in a church with a magisterium and 2000 years of tradition, moreover (though it would probably be a bad development in TEC).  Whereas Anglicans and especially Episcopalians tend to be confident that everyone can ‘think for him/herself’ once a pronouncement is made, such independent-mindedness in the USA has facilitated TEC getting to the state it is now in.

A triviality, but perhaps the best line of this whole essay to my mind was ”....typical TEC behaviour, a grandmother’s-footsteps game of creeping forwards without being noticed….”  That mental picture is so very helpful for understanding TEC’s current leadership, as is the one that has been recurring to me of a defiant adolescent watching and checking the parent’s every reaction in an attempt to discern how to get away with as much as possible before bringing about a violent reaction (yes, I have a teen-aged offspring).  It is a dysfunctional family member at best, or worse, hostile and destructive, and calling it out as Bp. Wright has done is helpful.

#41, the Paragraphs #5 and #10 I referred to are from the ABC’s missive.  Apparently Bishop Wright thought them sufficiently succinct.  What would you have him write?

I agree with LumenChristie. If she is Thomas Paine, then call me Patrick Henry (all non-Virginians, look him up )

On an earlier post, I quote Eliza Doolittle. Words are great, but don’t mean a thing without action. Please let me know when the good +ABC   decides to take meaningful action, whatever it is.

Thanks, TACit.  Perhaps the manner of conduct in the English HoB requires the dense verbiage, but meanwhile people need some hope of closure.  The “creeping-forward” game is a very apt analogy.  They are patient—they will keep creeping up as long as they can get away with it.  Only putting a stop to the acting-out will gain anything.

And BTW—nothing I have said was intended to be a direct insult to the ACI.  They have been trying to do what they know how to do.  Setting out theological principles has its place.  But words alone will not—and have not—accomplish(ed) what is needed.

It has been a busy day with parish work—my ignorance of ‘the pew sitter’ notwithstanding.  I gather there is a major discussion of published versions of the text going on at SF (I cannot acceess SF for some reason). This is a blog ‘tempest in a teapot.’  We are doing all we can to be sure that ACNA is included, via a covenant, should that be their decision. To suggest that edited versions were intent on demoting ACNA is to search for division and party strife. It is hardly for us to say what ACNA wants and will pursue, prayerfully, in the will of God. Having worked closely with +Duncan and others from the present ACNA, we do not now wish to second-guess their intentions, out of charity. Please believe it is possible for CP to consider their future without steady (pro or con) reference to ACNA. Obviously ACNA proponents may want to parse everything through their own perspective, but please do not assume CP understands itself as opposed to ACNA or its identity as vis-a-vis. I believe CP understands the plight of ACNA, and wishes it well. But ACNA’s work is ACNA’s. So it is.

Like jamesw (#32), let me repeat, though not verbatim, what I’ve said over at SF.  I welcome and applaud this admirably clear and forceful appeal for action by +NT Wright.  He puts the most optimistic interpretation on the ABoC’s painfully dense reflections, and then rightly calls for immediate ACTION.  His suggestions for such action are minimal, but very practical and would be immensely beneficial.  Personally, I think even more radical actions are necessary to save Anglicanism (which I don’t equate with the survival of the AC), but this would be a tremendous start.

So I say, Bravo!  Well done, +Wright.  And since I’m so often critical of the ACI team and the Fulcrum group, let me address a similar “Bravo! Well done!” to them.

Let everyone take note of the important conclusion of Dr. Seitz in his #13 above, “We’ve come down to the wire, it appears.  The question is what God brings forth from this.”  The urgency and intensity in +NTW’s fervent appeal for action is unmistakable.  He speaks of the AC having reached “the tipping point.”

Well, for the ACI/Fulcrum crowd anyway it is.  Personally, I think the tipping point was GAFCON last summer, that’s when the tide clearly turned.  Or you could say the fateful tipping point when the doom of the AC was sealed was when the ABoC treacherously decided that the deadline of the Primates in Tanzania was, you know, more of a guideline, or a milepost along the way.

But regardless, this is indeed a decisive moment.  The future of Anglicanism (as well as the AC) hangs in the balance.  So I will stop casting stones or aspersions at the noble ACI/Fulcrum leaders, thank them for this wonderfully clear trumpet call (cf. 1 Cor. 14:8) that summons the ABoC (like everyone else) to battle, and I’ll join in praying that God will indeed bring forth great good out of all the chaos and agony of this terrible conflict that has indeed now come to a head.

David Handy+

Dr. Seitz (#47),

When you do gain access to the SF thread, I think you might be pleasantly surprised at how positive it is about +Wright’s courageous and bold response to ++RW’s muted and mild response to the inexcusable, insufferable actions TEC took at Gen Con.  Certainly I was pleasantly surprised at how clear and direct and forceful was +NTW’s appeal for immediate action.  I’m also profoundly grateful for it.  Again, I say, Bravo to you and the rest of the ACI/Fulcrum team.

And FWIW, although I’m now in the ACNA myself and a strong advocate of the wider FCA movement, I’m not at all inclined to carp and nit pick about how this fine statement touches in passing on the anomalous situation of the ACNA.  In the heat of battle, it’s time to close ranks.

As the Spanish say, “It’s the moment of truth.”  I agree that we Anglicans stand at a momentous crossroads.  I’m praying that our gracious sovereign Lord softens Cantaur’s stubborn refusal to repent of his theological error in supporting the “gay is OK” delusion and strengthens his mind and heart to take decisive action for once. But regardless, I believe that somehow the Head of the Church will bring forth more good from this whole mess than any of us could ever imagine.

David Handy+

47…words like ‘would-be Anglicans’ betray you…not to mention that wishing well to a group with whom you are claiming to be comrades sounds more like a kiss off…as someone above said, words matter and we all need to maximum charity

16. No Delay. ... The obvious way to do this is to declare that ‘Track One’ is open, right away, to Covenant signatories, and only Covenant signatories. ...

In changing the language from “tier” to “track” the ABC is explicitly trying to suggest parallel paths, and, as I understand it, parallel paths without value judgments on their merits.  It seems to me that the Archbishop of Durham is ignoring that point in his haste to establish “Track One” for those who think as he does.

(Is it a sure thing that the Church of England would sign on for Track One?)

Maybe the tracks should have names rather than numbers: for example, track of the saints and track of the angels.

New Reformation Advocate (#49),

... stubborn refusal to repent of his theological error in supporting the “gay is OK” delusion ...

Not the ABC’s words.  Are you speaking about gay people or gay behavior in mentioning what you refer to as the ABC’s error?

Good night!

#50 The phrase is Bishop Wright’s and I suspect he means by it, Anglicans in Communion with Canterbury (the usual meaning of Anglican). Obviously he hopes this comes about. Others (in ACNA) may not care, but that is not a topic he takes up in this letter.

Truth to tell that Rowan has said over and over again that all those who are involved in this struggle and claim to be Anglican continuing as they are able in these difficult times are in fact Anglicans in relationship with him…he has always affirmed his recognition as Archbishop of the faithful.

Thanks, David Handy. I am unable to get SF any longer for some reason. My computer links were also up and down yesterday. Glad to know the comments are positive for the most part.

stabill (#52),

I meant homosexual behavior, of course.

I’m sorry if my putting gay is OK in quotations marks was misleading.  I wasn’t suggesting that the ABoC actually said those words.  It’s my own humorous summary of the pro-gay position, an expression that I’ve used many times here at T19.

David Handy+