And another nail in the coffin of the endless statements by Primates and Committees.  Is anyone beginning to feel that the Primates meeting is as ineffectual as the UN?

Question: Does The Archbishop of Canterbury know that Kenneth Kearon is his “right hand man”?
Comment:  If so, I sincerely hope the ABC is left-handed.

ACoC just drew a “Get out of jail free” card.

Perhaps the primates will be issuing the other card: you know, the one that says, “Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.00.

Either KK+ speaks the Mind of +Cantuar, or he does not.  In either case, he should be told to shut up.  These sorts of statements are not helpful to the process.

This is Kearon (Louis Crew’s buddy, remember) actively encouraging a vote in favor of same-sex blessings.  And it’s also his blatantly stripping from his boss any leverage he might have had to prevent or delay it.  If he’s acting on orders from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the communion’s dead.  If he’s not, he should be fired forthwith—and the primates should demand it.

Brian: “Is anyone beginning to feel that the Primates meeting is as ineffectual as the UN?”

No, because there’s been no reason to think that.  Until now, maybe…but still, it’s worth waiting until Sept. 30.  Besides, as #2 stated, I wasn’t aware that Kearon was in a position to make that comment.

What I’d like to know, Brian, is when did apostasy become a valued tenant of Anglicanism?

What Kearon has said here really disturbs me. Did or did not the Archbishop of Canterbury authorize him to make such a statement? I pray not!

It also disturbs me with the message it gives to the Anglican Church of Canada. Will this affect their decision, thinking they may not have to face the “spanking” due them if they disobey the sanctity and doctrine of the church? Most likely.

I was raised in the Anglican Church of Canada, but this really saddens me. I’ve been praying all week that they will make the right decision. However, if they do not, then they deserve to be disciplined effectively for their actions. Yes, this big issue is splitting the church as the book of Jude in the Bible has predicted. For any one person to attempt to manipulate the votes of any of those present is totally unChristian and shows no morals whatsoever. Now I just pray for all those in the vote to please not listen to these outside efforts to sway them. Please do what God wants, NOT what the world wants.

Mugsie

What a relief; even though they may all be cast into outer darkness at the day of judgment, they will still be part of the Anglican Communion.  I’m sure everyone will rest easier.  Pass me another Pimm’s cup, and fluff up my pillow, won’t you?

Re #8, Thanks Skeptical. That was a nice light bit of humour that I really needed right now. Your point is so clear and so well intended.

I don’t understand this at all. If he is indeed RW’s right hand man, then his words have been sanctioned, have they not? Is he NOT so connected to RW? This says the Sept. 30 deadline does not apply to the Canadians? How can this be? Is RW on sabbatical right now and does this mean he will not address such problems? Does this mean that the Canadians can sanction SSM and be held harmless for their actions? I need someone to explain what is going on, for the words above make no sense in the light of the context of the subject.  LM

Larry, like you, I’m waiting for some further explanation. I’m totally flabbergasted that Kearon would say such a thing. If he is indeed accountable for RW, then I hope and pray that he’s in deep doodoo for speaking for RW without consent of RW himself. I think what really needs to happen now is that, regardless of RW being in sabbatical, he needs to speak up and clarify this thing. Something is definitely very wrong here.

I wasn’t aware that Kearon was in a position to make that comment.

He is.  Look him up.  Besides, to all those thinking he isn’t, why hasn’t the ABC corrected the “mistake’

What I’d like to know, Brian, is when did apostasy become a valued tenant of Anglicanism?

You’d have to ask the landlord;-)

If Abp. Williams wants to break up the Anglican Communion, he should have the lamentable Kenneth Kearon keep delivering messages like this.

It seems reasonable to infer that Kearon is speaking with Williams’ approval. After all, this is the biggest issue of the synod and Williams didn’t let Kearon go just to bumble about with unauthorized personal opinions.

Open question:
For the past several months, I’ve been following, mostly on T19, the debate in the Anglican Communion on same-sex marriages and related issues dealing with homosexuality.  I am not an Anglican/Episcopalian and really don’t have the background to sort out much of what I read but, nevertheless, I find the developments very saddening and quite bewildering.  I try to put myself in the shoes of the average Anglican who grew up with certain expectations of what to expect from his or her church but is now probably confused and afraid for the future.

My question to that type of Anglican Christian is:  What will you do if the native-English-speaking churches, including the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury go the way of TEC?  From what I can read, it is not that far-fetched.  I hope I’m wrong but I can’t rule it out.

Do anyone have any ideas on this or know of any articles on same?

Peace

#7 mugsie says:

I was raised in the Anglican Church of Canada, but this really saddens me. I’ve been praying all week that they will make the right decision. However, if they do not, then they deserve to be disciplined effectively for their actions. Yes, this big issue is splitting the church as the book of Jude in the Bible has predicted. For any one person to attempt to manipulate the votes of any of those present is totally unChristian and shows no morals whatsoever. Now I just pray for all those in the vote to please not listen to these outside efforts to sway them. Please do what God wants, NOT what the world wants.

In this case, “the world” includes “the Anglican Communion.”  The ACC should make their decision based on their best discernment of the merits of SSBs—that is, do their best to determine “what God wants”—without worrying about any “discipline” that they may incur.

This is not to say that they should not consider the impact of their decision on the wider Communion—they certainly should, and unlike TEC in 2003 they can’t tell themselves that it won’t prove to be that big a deal.  That should be one of the factors in their decision.  But “discipline”?  Pff.  If they are honestly convinced that what they choose is what God is directing them to do, then whatever they suffer for it is unimportant.  If they let the threat of discipline sway them, then even if it happens to move them in the direction that God truly wants they would only be going there out of fear; and that’s a paltry thing.

“If you do this thing, you will hurt many of us,” is an argument that Godly men and women should pay attention to, even if they should happen to decide in the end that other arguments (such as justice) outweigh it.  “If you do this thing, we will punish you,” deserves nothing, not even acknowledgement.

The implication of the Kearon remarks must also be that there will be no sanctions for the US Church either; I’ve been a priest for more than thirty years—ordained a few months before women’s ordination took hold in the Episcopal Church.  I’ve watched the gradual sinking perhaps through rose colored glasses much of the time.  I hoped that rescues would come from one place or another.  I’ve seen bishops make the right moves, and then pull back as if they were afraid of being sucked down with the ship in case it was too late for a rescue.  I’ve never believed I was on the White Star Line until the last few weeks, but now…you know, all of the engineering indicates that the ship is unsinkable.  I think Kearon may have just ripped one too many compartments just below the waterline.

Focloir [#14]: Rich-country Anglican churches (those in English-speaking Britain, North America, Australia, and New Zealand) tend to be revisionist. But there are orthodox dioceses in many of these countries and the Church of England has (among other things) a strong evangelical contingent. The Global South is strongly orthodox.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury want to preserve a global Anglican Communion, he needs to steer a course tolerable to the Global South. If he will not do that, then Global South leaders and their allies in English-speaking countries will build their own structures of mutual support, with or without Canterbury’s approval.

Focloir

My question to that type of Anglican Christian is:  What will you do if the native-English-speaking churches, including the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury go the way of TEC?  From what I can read, it is not that far-fetched.  I hope I’m wrong but I can’t rule it out.

Do anyone have any ideas on this or know of any articles on same?

That’s a tough one because there are a multitude of responses.  Fulcrum did a good article on General Convention and the views of different groups regarding the importance of communion.  That is a good place to start.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/newsletter08.cfm?doc=114

In addition, under the Features section of http://www.standfirminfaith.com you will find many well organized articles.  I find the most informative and reasoned to be by Sarah Hey as she is committed to change within the Communion.

The simplest answers are:

1. Stay and fight for change from within
2. Stay and give up
3. Leave and join one of the Continuin Anglican churches not affiliated with Canterbury
4. Leave Anglicanism altogether

#7 Mugsie: “Please do what God wants…”
Indeed, that is my prayer. The difference, I suspect, between the way you and I pray is that I operate more under a hermeneutic of “Of course, I could be wrong”—and am willing to let God sort it all out.

#19 Do you have a picture? I have always wanted to see someone operating under a hermeneutic.
Larry

Larry Morse-

I keep my hermeneutic out on the driveway. I park my boat under mine, and it helps keep the leaves and debris out. My weapon of the spirit and shalom are properly stored in the garage, of course. I like to keep my weapon of the spirit in easy reach. Never know when you might need one of those suckers.

Whether or not he has Cantaur’s blessing to make such a statement, I am sure that Kearon has it right.  Which is just one of the reasons that those who still think September 30th is going to amount to something should really look around and think again.

How many times do you need to live this “wait-for-the-next-date-that’s-gonna-matter” routine?

If you are in both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion on September 30th, you’ll still be in both on October 1st…and every day after that until YOU decide to make a change.  On October 1st you may awake to a “new season of conversation” or another “period of discernment” (or maybe “reception”?) but there will be no ACTION on the part of the institutional leadership of the Communion.

Kearon is right:  There is NO scenario - for the Episcopal Church USA or the Anglican Church of Canada - whereby the institutional leaders of the Anglican Communion will say “enough”.

I wish there was a date when people would finally get that.  How ‘bout we say October 1st?

I think that KK is simply uttering another of his blasts, similar to the message he sent to Quean Lutibelle ....
That said, I suspect that +Cantaur is too well behaved to give KK in public, the verbal thrashing his comments deserve.

As mentioned above, the most egregious part of this move by KK, is the obvious attempt to sway votes at the Synod, by falsely trying to make light of the serious manner with which, the GS primates view all this.

Very interesting thread, thank you for these comments.

I think that Kearon’s remarks are meant to be persuasive - he judges that threats are counter productive and that recognising the freedom of the Canadians to act is more likely to persuade them to act in accordance with the wishes of the Communion as a whole than making a threat, which could have the opposite effect.

Rowan Williams doesn’t say much, but lately he sounds more like Kearon.  In his TIME interview, he said that he did NOT see the Dar Communique as “the primates trying to dictate terms”.  And all his pronouncements have said that the consequences of a falling out between constituent members of the Communion will be serious and unfortunate, but not that they will involve any kind of expulsion or total exclusion.

#17 Iranaeus says “If the Archbishop of Canterbury want to preserve a global Anglican Communion, he needs to steer a course tolerable to the Global South. If he will not do that, then Global South leaders and their allies in English-speaking countries will build their own structures of mutual support, with or without Canterbury’s approval.”

The Global South, for reasons I do not fully understand, has clearly done this already.  I think this was a tactical error, because a threat is more likely to get results when it can be averted than when it has already been carried out.  To that extent, this threat, which caused even people like Bishop Richard Harries of Oxford (who put up Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading) to vote in favour of Lambeth 1.10 in 1998 (if I recall correctly), has lost a lot of its traction, and we may be seeing the results of this.

The Archbishop of Canterbury wants, above everything else, to maintain the unity of the Anglican Communion, to the highest extent possible.  He was willing to put pressure on the liberals (who were quite susceptible to pressure, especially at first) to achieve this, because the conservatives insisted on it.  But when the conservatives went ahead with border crossing, and threats of a Lambeth boycott, and persistent refusal (during the Primates meetings at Dromantine and Dar) to take communion with their fellow Primates, despite all his best efforts, they made it very unlikely that he would part company with the liberals as well.

And, of course, you are all right in judging that the one thing Williams was never going to support was expulsion.  He will see people walk away with regret.  But he won’t send them away. 

Another thing I think unfortunate from the conservative point of view is that the only people walking away, that is, severing their links with other members of the Communion, are the Global South.  Given the Williams policy of letting people make their own decisions, this is making them the losers.

I understand that they may not care, because they think the Communion is too weak and corrupt to be worth their while, and because they no longer have any particular affection or respect for a UK centred Communion.  In many ways that is natural.

If Keron is right it would have been of great help if the ABC had said this years ago.  As is was this gave the reasserters the false hope that they coutl leave TEC and still be in the AC.  This now seems to have been a pipe dream from the start.  It is now clear that the decision has to be to leave both.

#21: I appreciate your inclusive, enlarging the circle description of your hermeneutic. It is obviously useful. Do you suppose Wal-Mart or Home Depot has them?  Larry

Thoughtful piece, Badman.  Thank you.

Badman [#24]: I agree that threats (or more precisely, statements about the consequences of an act) are most persuasive when the recipient can still act to avert the consequences.

Today the Global South builds “structures of mutual support” in place of ECUSA. But if Canterbury aligns itself with ECUSA against the Global South and the gospel, the Global South has the option of building structures that avoid dependence on Canterbury.

Larry [#26]: Hula hoops are readily available over the Internet.

The right hand man of Louie Crew, more correctly.

Ross #15, you totally missed my point. I’m not referring to the “world” in the sense that it includes the Anglican Communion. What I am referring to is the “world vs. the body of Christ”. BIG difference. We are not of this “world”. We are of Christ, and IN Christ. We are only temporarily in this “world” until Christ brings us home. We are advised by the scriptures to not conform to this world. That is more what I’m referring to.

As to “discipline” again you missed my point. I’m not at all referring to discipline from the Anglican Church. If they do come to their senses and properly discipline anyone who is contributing to the current heresy going on, then that’s great. I could care less what they chose to do at this point. I have serious concerns about the integrity of TEC at this point, and I’m watching ACC very closely this week to see which way they will go. I was raised in that church and have a very personal interest there. My family are still in that church (luckily their diocese still wants no part of this same-sex nonsense). The “discipline” I’m referring to is from the Father, himself. We all discipline our children when they misbehave, don’t we? I can assure you God will be disciplining these folks on their judgement day. They will have to answer to their actions. I’m not afraid of worldly discipline as you seem to assume. BUT, I DO have a very healthy respect and fear of God. I’m doing my best to be obedient to His word. The problems in the TEC and parts of the ACC clearly show a blatant disregard for God’s word, and that shows a direct lack of respect and fear of Him. I don’t mean a “cowering” fear. I mean a more “awesome” fear. I am totally in “awe” of Him. He’s my salvation and what I do affects what I will encounter on my judgement day. You bet I care about that!

Another point you make: they might be honestly convinced that they are doing what God is telling them. HOWEVER, is that really God talking??? They are totally disregarding God’s word in the scriptures. In many cases they don’t even believe the scriptures to be God’s word. The PB of the TEC doesn’t even believe Jesus is our only way to salvation. I’m sorry but I just don’t believe these people are doing what GOD is telling them. Instead, I’m more inclined to think they are under the clutches of the antichrist and are doing what he is telling them instead. Read the 2nd half of the book of Daniel. It explains this very well. Also, read Jude. It very clearly warns us this would happen. What you do with that is up to you, but I strongly refute your points and will not conform to what this “world” is trying to tell me to do when God’s word tells me differently.

#19, you can be assured that God will sort it out in the end. That’s clearly stated in the Bible. However, that doesn’t give us the freedom to just do whatever we please here and now. He does expect us to be “obedient” to his word. His word is clearly stated in scripture. That is what I was referring to. Please do what God is telling us in the scriptures.

#20. Cute one, Larry! Loved it!

#21: “I like to keep my weapon of the spirit in easy reach. Never know when you might need one of those suckers.” Oh, ain’t that the truth.  Keep those TECmoslems from eating the rhododendrons and the lillies of the field. Larry