And the web continues to tangle

This is from Christianity Today (as quoted on Anglicans Ablaze.)

[Christianity Today UK] 20 June 2009--Five English bishops are set to join the launch of a new fellowship for orthodox Anglicans who say they want to stay true to Scripture and get on with the Great Commission of sharing the Gospel with the world.

The Fellow of Confessing Anglicans will be launched in Westminster on July 6 in the presence of the Bishops of Fulham, Lewes, Chichester and Rochester. The Bishop of Chester has sent greetings.

The gathering will also hear video and personal greetings from international guests including Nigerian Archbishop Nicholas Okoh and Archbishop Henri Orombi from Uganda.

Well Jesus only began with 3 wise men and a few sheperds so 5 bishops is I guess a start. This new organization looks to me to be utterly il-conceived. It is to be formed affirming the "Jerusalem Deceleration" of "GafCon" or as I prefer "Gaf(fe)Con." The documents published about it say its members are going to stay in the CoE in almost exactly the same terms then bishop Duncan used about staying in TEC when he started "The Network." As all know that morphed into ACNA and former bishop Duncan is now "arch bishop" of whatever ACNA is or may become.

So, this new thing will be recognized by the Gaffe-prone as a new church within a church taking its doctrine and authority from the "Jerusalem Declaration" and not the Church of England. One wonders how Dr. Williams will Indaba that?

FWIW
jimB

'a new thing'

It is my habit to use whatever analytical skills I posses, I am a business systems analyst; my business education and my political science background to approach and comment on the goings on in my world, especially my church. That means I often use a somewhat political and structural basis as I look at the events and my essays result.

All of which is by way of explaining my perspective as I look at Bedford Texas this week. In Bedford we are seeing the creation of what its leaders think will be a new province in the Anglican Communion. So what is this, “new thing?”

The people in Bedford are proclaiming that they are the “Anglican Church in North America.” That is intended to be dismissive of both Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church (USA.) To make things simply I tend to use ACNA, ACCanada and TEC to for those bodies. ACC refers to the Anglican Consultative Council in most writings thus ACCAnada. Mr. Duncan consistently refers to it as a 'province.' So what is ACNA going to be?

According to its leaders it is a province in something. That is where the problems begin. The Anglican Communion to say the least is a confusing thing.

England is for historical reasons divided into two provinces. York in the North is led by the Archbishop of York. The is led by the Archbishop of Canterbury. For those keeping score this is the Archbishop's first 'hat.' But the Archbishop of York is “Primate of England” while the Archbishop of Canterbury is “Primate of All England.” So Canterbury is accorded more deference and is the functional head of the entire Church of England. We shall call that a second hat.

With the second hat comes international activity. It is the 'fellowship with Canterbury' that identifies a national church as a 'province' and as such a member of the Anglican family. Historically, the Archbishop does not issue 'fellowship' membership cards or documentation. Rather the bishops of churches in fellowship get invited to conferences and meetings so we sort of know who they are because they are there doing fellowship stuff. At such meetings, if he appears, Canterbury is always the presumptive chair. There is actually a name for that in Latin we call it “first among equals” in English and it is the third hat.

If this all looks a bit untidy (it should) then the efforts to fix it are more so. About 170 years ago the Canadian and American churches suggested to the then Archbishop of Canterbury that the bishops should get together and talk. From that first conference called in the Lambeth Palace which is the Archbishop's official residence, has arisen the “Lambeth Conference.” Another way to figure out that a national church is in “fellowship with Canterbury” is that its bishops get a invitation in years ending with 8 to the palace. The Archbishop is the convener and president of this event, which is a forth hat.

This one takes a lot of time and effort and considerable staff. It is a meeting that has no legislative authority for reasons we shall look at later. But(!) its 'ressolutions' which 'advise' have historically been taken as though they can legislate I said things would become more untidy.

The Lambeth Council has other problems. It is the Archbishop's party, as such he sets the agenda, and sends the invitations. He also gets the bills. But thee is no obvious reason for the Church of England, which is not a wealthy institution, to pay for it. So for some decades it has been dependent on a few wealthy national churches and private charity. This is also true for some national churches which cannot send their bishops absent grants.

Some time ago, a non-legislative body meeting every 10 years, and a single non-elected primate living in England with neither authority nor budget to pay for an (optional) conference did not represent the optimal structure for an international body. So the bishops at a Lambeth Council suggested a more permanent structure come into existence. The result is a registered British charity called, The Anglican Consultative Council. When the council meets (even numbered years not ending in 8) the Archbishop of Canterbury is the presiding officer. He also is its chief executive officer, and its bureaucracy reports to him. We shall call that a fifth hat.

The Council and its permanent office, “Anglican Communion Office” (ACO) is funded by contributions made by the provincial churches. Not all contribute and while there are suggested amounts, not all pay the entire amount. The ACO is chronically underfunded.

Like Lambeth, the council's resolutions do not have force of law. About the only thing either the archbishop or the council can do if someone ignores it is revoke 'fellowship.' In a sense that is like a congregation or diocese. A person can be excommunicated and that is about all it can impose.

Finally, in an effort to get the provincial churches to understand each other better, some years ago the ACO suggested the primates meet twice a year. At the time the idea was simply conversation. As crises has however arisen, these meetings have become focuses of dispute and the resolutions they have adopted contentious items in the life of the church.

There is another dimension to all this. British law says that the king/queen “is and of right ought to be head of the Church in England.” From time to time one reads a member who does not understand how impotent the crown is in England exhorting the queen to make the bad guys behave. Even if the queen were to give the archbishop an order (she wont) and he were to decide to obey it (he wont) what would happen? Remember, all he can do is stop inviting bishops to meetings!

So there it is in all its glorious untidiness. A church with multiple heads (we have not touched on the relationship between the church of England and parliament of its internal councils) sort of leading but not quite, a set of national churches at least some of which are supra-national! TEC, ACCanada, Southern Cone, Jerusalem, and Caribbean provinces all have multiple countries in them, even without disputed areas.

So finally the question of what place is available for ACNA? Well, none.

The entity wont be a ticket to the next Lambeth Council which in any case is 9 years off. Its new archbishop, a deposed former TEC bishop wont be invited to the next Primates' meeting and Lambeth palace wont be announcing its fellowship with the Archbishop anytime soon. In lieu of this, several primates in Central Africa, one in South America and maybe one each in the mid-East and Asia may announce they think this is now the official North American church. Somehow they consistently forget Mexico is in North America so by being in Canada and the US they think they cover.

This is the stuff of schism. If those primates in Africa and elsewhere refuse to be in the existing untidy communion, they will necessarily form a new international body. Several of their number are (humbly we are assured) available to head such a body. Then there simply wont be as big an untidy community.

I think that will be sad. But the structures really tell it all. In spite of the efforts of those who compulsively seek to tidy up (including Dr. Williams) the communion stays what it is. It sort of muddles through things. We presumably will muddle through this.

I am not sure, it may be that given what I have tallied as five hats, the Archbishop of Canterbury's attempts at tidiness simply represent exhaustion! In any case they are doomed to failure. One thing is clear about primates – they do not surrender power! So, getting all of them to line up under the Archbishop's power and 'covenant' is a foredoomed effort. So too the new "province."

FWIW

On the eve of General Convention a Prediction

A few interesting items have crossed my view making me think about ‘my side’ of some arguments now excessively current in both the society and my church.

Liberals tend to believe that the opposite of liberal is uneducated. This idea sees expression in the concentration of lefties in public education, the comments one reads by liberals about conservatives, and such amusing ideas as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Indaba and “kept them at the table” policy. “If only they understood and were educated {like I am} they would agree” is what, in one variant or another, one hears. One of the ultimate words of condemnation on the part of a liberal speaking about a conservative is: ignorant.

Conservatives perceive liberals think them stupid. Now stupid and ignorant are not exactly the same thing. But the conservative knows he knows what the liberal is saying. But for whatever reason, the conservative comes to different conclusions. So clearly (he thinks) when the liberal says ‘ignorant’ or ‘uneducated’ he must mean ‘stupid.’

This misassumption problem finds all sorts of unfortunate expression.

The archbishop foists Indaba on the church because if only we talk long enough the conservatives will finally ‘get it.’ Oh that is not the rhetoric; the official version is that we are ‘seeking common ground.’ But no one believes it. What is really going on is that the liberals are out to raise the conservatives to their level of understanding. Yes the liberal view is every bit as arrogant as it sounds.

One might when it is stated baldly, begin to understand why conservatives translate Indaba as, "liberals and conservatives talk forever while liberals take over all the authority and do whatever they want." One might also come to understand why people with legitimate university credentials are insulted.

If and it is, the great failure of conservative thought is beginning with the conclusion, the great failure of the liberal thought is the assumption that the processes and conclusions are inescapable.

So we have the interminable efforts on the left to get the conservatives to ‘understand.’ And we have the evolution of the conspiracy theory. Sometimes the link is amazingly clear. To wit:

The Anglican Consultative Council has received a substantial grant from the Satcher Institute to extend the “Indaba” into a “listening process.” Liberals see this as a good idea, "after all if we are still talking" (we say to any and all) "there is still opportunity for understanding." Conservatives see a conspiracy. They know the object is to educate them into liberals so they start looking for the conspirators. And they “find” them.

They trace various people in the organizational structures of the grant, and find some whose past conduct or statements they consider outrageous. Clearly, those people taint the money and their presence explains what is ‘really going on.’ Actually, what is going on is the liberal assumption – educate them and they will reach our clearly inescapable conclusions. It is really that simple but that does not make a good conspiracy. So of course, the conspiracy theorist finds other things, indoctrination, false information and lulling before the ‘strike’ are favorites.

It is likely that not much will come from the listening process or the general convention. Conservatives will continue to talk about ‘clarity’ while the liberals will continue to educate. Neither side will actually listen: nothing will be resolved.

FWIW

umbrellas and repression

Recently CNN, like most networks noted the 20th anniversary of the Tienanmen Square massacre and the subsequent repression of freedom seekers in China. In my view, and I submit Thomas Jefferson's such evil begins with secrecy. Jefferson was famously quoted as saying that if offered the choice between a State with no press or press with no State he would choose the later.

So now we see a secret committee. Not in China, but in The Episcopal Church (USA.) Our masters bishops have created this committee in a blatant attempt to punch their tickets to Anglican events without being troubled by those pesky lesbian and gay freedom seekers. One wonders if they covet the Chinese tanks. Instead of Tienanmen Square, we will have Anaheim.

In Tienanmen, CNN was confronted by State Security people with of all things umbrellas. Umbrellas they kept thrusting in front of the camera operators so that the network could not show the square. Umbrellas like committees can be used as instruments of repression.

So here is my suggestion. Can we get a button making machine to California in time to make buttons that have the TEC symbol partially obscured by an umbrella with a miter on it? It is probably not possible to keep the bishops from being repressive, but we can certainly show that we know what they are doing.

I think the symbol apt. Of course things could get ugly if the presiding bishop can actually get the tanks!

FWIW

Gospel and Guns?

My elder son and I viewed MP Post the video that my friend Fr. Jonathon posted. We talked about a post I wrote here back in March My Post.

Drew as he is wont to do said something insightful. "The very idea of owning and carrying guns (to church?) for 'self defense' is contrary to the Gospel. Jesus said, "blessed are the peacemakers" and "take no thought for tomorrow" both of which make the pessimistic paranoid attitude MP, a great many others and I have been noting is decidedly unchristian. The Gospel does not include paranoia, arming against your neighbor (Jesus seemed to think we should love them,) and certainly loving one's neighbor does not including shooting him in his church.

It is appalling to me that my countrymen are so paranoid that gun and ammo sales are skyrocketing. That some now think of this as 'Christianity' goes beyond appalling.

FWIW
jimB