American Anglican Council weekly message, Sept. 5

Via email, from Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

In the United States, there is high interest in what will happen at the TEC House of Bishops meeting in late September. Will Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori heed advice being given her and leave Bishop Duncan alone for the time being, or will she proceed with her deposition plans for him? If she tries to depose him based on what he might do in the future, will she succeed or fail? Also, will the fact that the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy are all poised to take votes in their respective Diocesan Conventions with regard to separation from the Episcopal Church affect the proceedings?

Presiding Bishop Schori seems to have only one response to crises and that is to invoke the names of "Dewey, Sue'm & Howe" and commence litigation. We would suggest to her a great little book called "Getting to Yes" which might offer a few more options in conflict situations. If Bishop Schori opens up too much litigation all at once she may find herself in the same position that some nations have been - fighting in too many theatres of battle at once and unable to maintain adequate material and resources for each one. If she thinks she can use the trust fund reserve or the pension fund, she should look down the hall to the picture of Ellen Cooke, former TEC treasurer, who was sent to the "time out" box for just such actions.

North of the border in Canada, things are tense as the Anglican Church of Canada in the Diocese of New Westminster continues its assault on the orthodox Anglicans occupying their own property. The attacks by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada on faithful Anglican believers continue unabated in courtrooms across the North American continent.

In the US, most of the churches that TEC is suing are still able to occupy their buildings and hold services while litigation is underway, whereas in Canada several churches have effectively been thrown out onto the curb, pending full trial. Cheryl Chang, a lawyer and legal director for the churches, reported that the judge "ordered us out at both churches and gave both churches to the diocese until full trial."

The reality is that the orthodox primates of the Anglican Communion can help those under attack in North America with provincial recognition and strong intercommunion and missional ties, but when it comes to litigation, the provinces overseas can do little to help us win the court battles.

Recognition of a new North American province for the orthodox, and revocation of provincial status for the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC would both be helpful, but the latter is unlikely.

Across the pond in the United Kingdom, the election of a new bishop for Bangor, Wales occupies much space in the news and on the blogs. As we reported last week from a reliable source, plans are afoot to place the name of Dean Jeffrey Johns on the slate. Since he identifies himself as a celibate gay priest who is in a registered civil partnership, his becoming an Anglican bishop would pose problems for a great part of the global Anglican Communion. With the opposition mounting and threats by one senior cleric in Wales to quit if this happens, one wonders if Dean Johns' name will be officially put forward, and if so, whether he would gain sufficient support for election. His elevation to the episcopacy would pose a significant problem for many bishops, archbishops and primates, yet in the case of New Hampshire in the United States, the diocese went ahead regardless of the problems caused.

Surely Archbishop Barry Morgan advised Dr. Williams about this prior to it becoming public; if not, the Archbishop of Canterbury (the former primate of Wales) might have just cause to be cranky when reading of it in the London papers. Although, since the release of the Pitt letters, it is painfully clear that the arch primate himself shares a sympathetic view of homosexual issues, surely for the sake of the church he is charged with defending he can arrange for this to be turned aside. As we noted last week, everyone is aware of the situation in advance of the election and there are therefore no free passes.

Some claim that since Dean Johns identifies himself as being celibate, thus meeting the letter of the church's official standard, and since civil partnerships are legal, there should be no obstacle to his appointment. But consider this: does the church's rule need amendment? Is a bishop in a same-sex civil partnership a wholesome example to the flock?

It is time for Christian leaders to be clear about what they believe, speak boldly and publicly in such a way that removes ambiguity, and let their yes be yes and their no be no. So much of what bishops and leaders say today is double-meaning spiritual mush designed to offend no one. The Good News of Jesus Christ requires plain, clear, simple speech that can reach both the executive in his corner office and the plough boy in the field. May we recover that virtue and grace.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Weekly message from the American Anglican Council, August 29

Via email, the weekly message from the American Anglican Council and Bishop David Anderson, August 29 [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

This past week the GAFCON Primates Council (GPC) met for the first time and began the organizational process. Decisions about who will take the duties of the General Secretary and who will be the chairman were followed by decisions about forming a Secretariat to handle the everyday business affairs associated with the Council and setting up an Advisory Board.

It may be too early to say that the GPC is fully up and running, but they are now quickly putting in place the organizational infrastructure to provide for the role that they intend to play in the years ahead. Putting together a strong infrastructure to carry out the work of GAFCON and the related Primates is essential, and creating a sound funding base for it will also be crucial for its long term effectiveness.

Those in North America were naturally listening hopefully for word about a North American Province, and desiring to hear that one had now been established. In many ways that was an unrealistic hope, since this first meeting had to organize the Council itself, a singularly daunting task, but the statement that a priority will be given to the North American situation and the formation of a Province is helpful reassurance.

In another sense, however, it is not up to the GPC to create a North American Province; their decision is whether to recognize a body already formed. It is likely that the Common Cause Partners Federation will wish to petition the 2009 Council meeting for recognition, and with its organizational issues taken care of, the Council may give favorable consideration to that recognition.

What the GPC will need to keep in mind is that the revisionist heterodoxy demonstrated by the North American church leaders also has a pernicious grasp on a good portion of the British Church as well.

With regard to "moratoria" on electing/consecrating any new homosexual bishops in the Anglican Communion, the next chance of such an election isn't in North America. We have become aware through reliable sources that Dr. Barry Morgan is a man of his word - he previously has said, "I (Barry Morgan) would ordain Britain's first gay Bishop."

Wales is in an election process for Bishop of Bangor and the election has as one of its still-secret nominees none other than Jeffrey John, sometime bishop designee for Redding, who had to withdraw when the appointment created an uproar. Failing to take the prize home with him, he was given an appointment as a Cathedral Dean to console him, but it now appears that some stock options for the future were thrown in as well (Dean Jeffrey John is in a same-sex civil partnership).

The electoral college consists of the clergy of the diocese of Bangor and all of the Bishops of the Province of the Church of Wales. Although being on the slate is no guarantee of an election, it is clearly something that Archbishop Morgan desires, having said that practicing homosexuals should not be barred from becoming bishops, and having called the opponents of such consecrations "exclusive and narrow-minded."

Could this be happening without the Archbishop of Canterbury knowing about it? Perhaps in theory, but this is Dr. Williams' former Province where he was first a bishop and then the Primate, and one would have to conclude that this type of information, even if not properly made available to Canterbury, would be soon found out by his intelligence operatives.

Dr. Williams might well wish not to know until too late, so that nothing is left on his doorstep for evidence, but we do know that Jeffrey Johns and Rowan Williams have been friends for years, and that it was extremely hard for Dr. Williams to advise Johns that it was time to fall on his sword, figuratively speaking, hence the consolation prize of a deanship. I really doubt that Dr. Williams wishes to rain on Jeffrey's parade twice, and if Canterbury would like plausible deniability, it is understandable.

However, Dr. Williams, if you are on record as knowing about this, and the event takes place despite all the "moratoria" recommendations that were made, the Archbishop of Canterbury will not get a free pass on this one. The Welch electoral college meets on September 10th and the election takes place October 10th. Will Jeffrey Johns still be on the short list for the election? Will he actually be elected?

We have said over and again that the greater part of the tear in the Anglican fabric is over the issues of Christology and the Authority of Holy Scripture, and at least in the USA, the disagreements over sexuality are derivative from these fissures. The sad part is that the media doesn't understand the theological mischief that the American church is pushing, and sex and money sell newspapers. Further, when it comes to human sexuality, nothing is ever settled - by design. If those who advocate for the gay sexual agenda lose, they keep coming back, wearing down the orthodox with "conversation", which means, listen to them until your ears fall off and you give up. If they gain ground by court or compromise, it is only the staging ground for demanding more.

Enough of this foolishness. Those who want to talk the talk and promenade about in their ecclesial vesture, but can't walk the walk, need to be removed from leadership. So...perhaps if Canterbury were to make a phone call to a certain Dean, things could go away again as they did once before. It wouldn't solve any of the existing problems, but it would keep the Communion from sinking deeper into the mess it has already created.

Oh, for the clarity and purpose of GAFCON to spread Communion-wide!

Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Weekly AAC message from Bishop David Anderson, August 15

Via email, the weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

As I reflect on the strange times we live in with regard to the Church and the Anglican Communion, I am preparing for another birthday next week. I will by year's end celebrate 64 years as an Anglican, thirty-six of them in Episcopal Church Holy Orders, and almost two years as a priest and then bishop in CANA (Nigeria), outside of TEC.

As early as 1988 I saw this conflict coming, but never imagined that it would be so worldwide or so bitter. Part of my amazement and disappointment has been with the duplicity of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, saying things in private that he has to act counter to in his public role. I could sympathize with his pain, but in reality the pain is of his own making. He can either change his mind over his privately held opinions, or he can step down from the office; either way his pain will go away. The fact that he has to espouse things publicly which the Anglican Communion is on record as believing and he secretly doesn't believe, does damage to his spirit and soul.

All of this could just be his personal burden and his personal pain, except that in looking at the decisions (and the lack of decisions) that have occurred since Dr Williams became the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is not hard to see that this personal conflict is affecting his work performance. He cannot bear to really punish the American and Canadian Churches because they are very close to where he is, though he can't say so. When the Panel of Reference failed, when the decisions of Dromantine, and Dar es Salaam, and the requirements of the September deadline were not met and we wonder why....it is because he can't bring himself to take action against those that are in fact his soul mates.

In Dr Williams' response to the controversy about the letters published last week by the Times, he stated, "In the light of recent reports based on private correspondence from eight years ago..." and then goes on to say that he still accepts the Lambeth 1.10 position. Dr Williams allowed that "In the past, as a professional theologian" he had "made some contributions" to the "study" of how the church should view homosexual relationships. This might pass muster, except for two circumstances: firstly, he wrote this most recently revealed private correspondence WHILE ARCHBISHOP OF WALES, not while in an academic ivory tower. He was then an archbishop and primate of the church, sworn to hold and uphold the beliefs taught by the Communion - just as he is now. Secondly, his work product as the primus inter pares indicates that his privately held beliefs ARE impacting his decisions about the breach of faith and discipline by America and Canada. These together nullify his claim of beliefs held only as an academic or theologian.

Attendant to that is the somewhat lengthy statement from Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, et al.: "...As bishops in the Church of England, we wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at what we regard as a gross misrepresentation of the Archbishop of Canterbury." Although they put forward five points to refute the opprobrium that came to Dr Williams attendant upon the release of the private letters, their arch collapses with their lack of proper dating of his attitudes. Their third point is a rehash of the defense that this occurred long ago when he was a theologian. They quote him in saying "that there is a difference between 'thinking aloud' as a theologian and the task of a bishop (let alone an Archbishop) to uphold the church's teaching." The problem with the third point, and hence their entire argument, is that these beliefs as made clear in the private letters were not his academic years' writings, but were communicated while holding the office of the Primate of Wales. Gentlemen, Dr Williams doesn't need your defense; he needs your collective good sense to unify his personal and public beliefs in conformity with the Anglican Communion's beliefs.

May I submit, from my own position far down the ecclesial food chain, that there is no longer theological space to be an orthodox bishop of the church and privately believe that which is contrary to what the Church teaches on core doctrine and moral discipline. To do so becomes, in the most benign situation, a form of mental illness where the individual experiences a bifurcation of mind, and in more extreme form, a spiritual illness representing a foot in each Kingdom. This time in the life of the Christian and Anglican Church calls for a clear mind aligned with and fully embracing the core teachings of the Christian faith, reformed and catholic. Full Stop.

Without seeing this as a condemnation, I would encourage readers to contemplate the truth that I am trying to describe about this conflicted situation and the pain of this bifurcation which is spreading system-wide.

Faithfully in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Archbishop Orombi clarifies The Times letter

From Kevin Kallsen at AnglicanTV [boldface mine]:

After The Times newspaper printed a letter from Archbishop [Henry] Orombi [of the Church of Uganda], AnglicanTV contacted His Grace for further clarification. Specifically we wanted to know if the Archbishop was implying he wanted Rowan to resign. Below is Archbishop Orombi's response.

Kevin Kallsen (AnglicanTV): Does your letter in The Times this week imply that you are calling for the resignation of the ABC?

Archbishop Henry Orombi: No. I am not suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury should resign. And, for the record, it was The Times (of London) that approached me about writing an essay on why the Church of Uganda Bishops were not attending Lambeth.

It seems to me that the maturing of the global nature of the Anglican Communion, beyond its colonial beginnings, would involve separating the role of the spiritual leader of the Communion from that of the Primate of All England. The Primate of All England should still retain the title primus inter pares, for he does retain a significant place of honour and historical significance. I would not want to diminish that in any way. We are very grateful for the British missionaries who came to us in Uganda and brought to us the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall never forget that and never cease giving thanks.

However, I do think it's time to realise that the Anglican Communion is no longer an extension of the Church of England. The Church of England is, of course, free to elect or appoint their Primate in whatever way they deem appropriate. But, should the Primate of All England necessarily or automatically be the spiritual leader of a world-wide, global Communion? That's the question I am asking.

And, may I just add, that I agree with Archbishop Rowan (and others) when he says that "the overwhelming concern of most Africans is clean water, food, employment, transparent governance." To that, I would also add quality education, adequate health services, and freedom from the power of sin and oppression by demonic spirits. We do, in fact, spend much more of our time focused on these issues, along with evangelism, than on homosexuality – despite the imbalance portrayed by the press.

But, what we in the Global South have strongly maintained is this: When you are known to be the "Gay Church" and a church that can't discipline itself, that severely hinders our ability to engage our communities on such issues as clean water, food, employment, and good governance. That is why we must resolve this conflict. It is not a matter that we can "agree to disagree" about homosexuality (and the underlying theology that leads one to the acceptance of homosexuality) and still pursue together the Millennium Development Goals. Our credibility and integrity as a church are seriously undermined because of the lack of resolution of the current crisis. It is not enough to be able to say that the official position of the Anglican Communion is Lambeth 1.10, because the lack of enforcement of that resolution seems to, in fact, render it null and void.

The crisis in the Communion is about authority – biblical authority and ecclesiastical authority. Regrettably, all the proposals coming out of the Windsor Continuation Group have been tried in the past five years and failed. However, even before we begin a re-examination of the Instruments of Communion and, in particular, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, we do have within our structures the ability to bring order out of the present chaos. Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Canterbury missed his biggest window of opportunity. If, in the end, the only means of discipline is through his power of invitation, he has, through his decision to invite the persistent violators of Lambeth 1.10 to the Lambeth Conference, blessed the deviations of the American and Canadian Churches, which have been consistently condemned by the other three Instruments of Communion.

It seems to me that the functions proposed for the Pastoral Forum are exactly what the Primates of the Communion have been charged to do. The 1988 Lambeth Conference urged the Primates' Meeting to "exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters" and the 1998 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed this. Are not Primates, duly elected from the various Provinces, in a better position than a "Commission" or "Forum"? We do not need the proliferation of more groups, committees, commissions, etc. to resolve this crisis. What we need is the enforcement/implementation of matters that have already been widely agreed.

Archbishop may be forced to do fundraising tour to solve £1m Lambeth financial crisis

But not, apparently, in America. From the Telegraph (U.K.) [boldface mine]:

The once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops from around the world, which was branded an "expensive exercise in futility" when it finished on Sunday with no agreement over the divisive issue of homosexuality, cost almost £6million to stage.

Most of the money was spent on hiring the University of Kent campus in Canterbury for three weeks, and for providing food and transport for the 670 prelates and their spouses.

But the Lambeth Company, the arm of the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion that runs the conference, urgently needs to raise at least another £1m.

To help pay its bills, it was disclosed yesterday that the Archbishops' Council, part of the Church of England, has provided the organisers with an interest-free £600,000 loan after holding an emergency meeting.

The head of the Anglican church in America - the richest province in the Communion - also disclosed that it has been asked to "foot the bill" and claimed that the Archbishop of Canterbury will tour the states to raise money.

The Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, said: "Yes we've been asked and the bishops of this church responded in ways that would provide bursaries for those unable to attend.

"I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to come to the United States and do some fundraising work, and we have certainly offered our assistance in that."

Lambeth Palace denied that Dr Rowan Williams will travel to America to ask churches for money, despite the Presiding Bishop's claims. . .

Read it all.

Weekly AAC message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email, the weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson for August 8 [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

Lambeth is now over. Many of us are studying not only the documents of Lambeth, but the detailed analyses that are being produced by various sources, and then sitting back and saying, "OK, what is really going on, and how does this play out in the next year?"

Reports came in from Lambeth that a number of TEC revisionist bishops were spreading misinformation in their Indaba groups about the state of litigation in the United States. Their claim was that the orthodox churches and dioceses "were suing them," and the blame was really to be put on the orthodox. This is untrue, but it has been proven that if a lie is told often enough, people begin to believe there is something to it. Let us look at a few examples of lawsuits in the US.

In California, the bishop of Los Angeles is suing the orthodox churches, as is also the case in the diocese of San Diego. The Los Angeles orthodox churches won in the lower court and were reversed in a Court of Appeals, and the case is now before the California Supreme Court. The point to take away is that Bishop J. Jon Bruno initiated the lawsuit, demanding even the children's Sunday School crayons (no, I am not joking, you can read it in the public record), and for anyone, especially a California bishop, to assert that they were sued first is a deliberate untruth.

In Virginia, Bishop Peter Lee had worked out an arbitration procedure that would have allowed the churches and the diocese to negotiate an agreed-upon settlement and avoid litigation. The churches proceeded with their parish votes and the registration of the vote tallies with the local Court Houses, as per the 1867 Virginia law that applied to church splits. When the TEC Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori heard about it, she advised Bishop Lee that "there is a new sheriff in town." Lee was told that if he didn't sue the churches, TEC would sue him. Bishop Lee uncharacteristically buckled under the pressure, and without advance notice, launched the lawsuits. For him to say that the Virginia churches sued him would be a gross violation of the truth also.

Somewhere in the United States, a parish may have asked for a declaratory judgment to settle issues of property title, or may have, once they were sued, filed a counter suit in defense, but it has been the model of the orthodox churches not to use the courts to attack bishops, dioceses, or TEC. The very aggressive stance that TEC has taken was first formulated by leadership within the Presbyterian Church in the US, and it appears that TEC Chancellor David Booth Beers is following the Presbyterian game plan to a "P."

As I mentioned above, there are lengthy reviews of the Lambeth documents available, but as an extremely brief summary you must notice that those who prepared the Indaba Reflections Document prepared it as a "reflection," not as a "mind of the Conference." It was not intended for the document to be the primary outcome of the conference, but simply a narrative to track what people and groups were expressing. Finally, the Reflections were not to our knowledge voted on or formally adopted by the Conference, nor was the document intended to be a resolution that called for specific action.

However, the Archbishop of Canterbury took the document and re-characterized it according to his agenda for the future, with the implied endorsement of the entire Lambeth Conference - although it was only a small group's compilation of "reflections." If they didn't know what they were producing, Dr. Williams certainly knew what he wanted, and it did serve his purposes.

Dr. Williams would like us to believe that almost everyone wants the three moratoria on same-sex blessings, gays in the episcopate, and border crossings to be effected. No vote on this was actually taken, but on his word we are to believe this. Dr. Williams would also like us to believe that there is "a strong consensus on the need to examine how the Instruments of Communion will best work." Already voices in TEC are shrilly announcing that they have no intention of having any moratoria on anything, and some have suggested that the General Convention of TEC in the summer of 2009 will overturn any agreement to refrain from consecrations of gay bishops.

Another of Dr. Williams' points is that some sort of covenant is desirable, although the extent of its power will have to be determined. The breakdown will, of course, occur when we get to the specifics of the covenant's contents. Will it be adequate as a covenant to prevent prevarication, and will there be actual consequences for those that either break the covenant or don't sign it?

Dr. Williams believes that most favor a Pastoral Forum as something that would help the situation and he is looking for detail on how it will be formed. What is not discussed is his lack of resolve for actually incurring painful consequences. His abysmal performance with the Panel of Reference and the lack of funding available will be crucial factors. If he needs to ask TEC for money for this, you know in advance the outcome has been bought.

Dr. Williams is already $4 million US dollars in the hole for shortfall on the just-ended Lambeth Conference. He has reportedly asked Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori for permission to raise money from TEC in the United States to help cover the debt. Next year he proposes having the JSC and the ACC and the Primates all meeting in one year. Will there be a budget shortfall next year, too? If so, who would cover it?

Dr. Williams is a master at building things designed not to work, such as the Panel of Reference, and now, the Lambeth Conference. All of this is to keep us together while we listen to his encouragement, promises and announcement of another meeting in six or nine or twelve months. In much of the Anglican world, however, everyone is a bit wiser now, and we realize the cause for his procrastination is that he secretly agrees with the gay agenda and hopes that if he can avoid an actual split, in time we will all come along. It is, after all, happening in England, and why can't everyone be like the Church of England, which lets the secular government tell it what is moral and proper? The latest bizarre story is the Bishop of Exeter, the Rt. Rev. Michael Langrish, giving his blessing for a "gay wedding" between Canon Rodney Bomford and his gardener Paddy O'Neil. The marriage couple held a "stag and hen party" at a local pub and apparently the "bride" dressed up in a pink top hat and had a sash.

Letters that Dr. Williams wrote as recently as 2002, when he was appointed as Archbishop, reveal his real beliefs, and they help us to understand why he cannot and will not act to bring the Anglican Communion into good order and faith. His comments, which several British newspapers have now seen and reported on, refute the Anglican Communion's traditional teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. He goes on to express his hope the the Anglican Communion will at some point change its position to be open to gay partnerships.

He is quoted as saying, "The Bible does not address the matter of appropriate behavior for those who are, for whatever reason, homosexual by instinct or nature." His reported academic brilliance may be as the "emperor's clothes;" this type of remark does such violence to the plain reading of scripture that it should disqualify any such speaker from any level of Holy Orders.

The concept that homosexuality is natural is fully unproven, but, like other types of propaganda, if repeated enough times, some will begin to believe it. For a moment, for the sake of argument, suppose that homosexuality is natural. It then joins many kinds of behavior that are "natural" but forbidden in the Kingdom of God. We are called to put aside the natural in order to put on the supernatural. Violence is very natural for human beings, yet we are called as Christians to turn aside from violence. An eye for an eye is natural, but forgiveness as God forgives us is the model we are called to. When scripture says that men are not to lie with men as with a woman, what part of that is not clear to Dr. Williams? It is an encompassing statement, permitting of no nuancing; it has no footnotes about only applying to heterosexual males who are doing something that they really don't want to do anyway. It uses inclusive language - men are not to do this. Other passages refer to women, lest they feel slighted by omission. Scripture is uncomfortably clear on most of the difficult things such as sex and money, so why is it that the "Primus inter Pares" of the Anglican Communion, who is reputed to be a brilliant scholar, cannot read, mark, learn and inwardly digest these scriptures? Hmm.

If you want to know where all of this is going, read what Rowan had written when he didn't know it would be in the London Times and the Telegraph. Then connect the dots. It does make me wonder if in fact a Queen's option still exists. This revelation about Dr. Williams tells us much about how his use of these post-Lambeth bodies will advance not only his stated agenda, but his now-more-visible underlying agenda.

Let us pray for the Anglican Church, that God's will (not anyone else's) be done. And let us pray for better times and for faithful leaders that the orthodox laity and clergy can truly trust, look up to, and follow.

Blessings and Peace in Jesus Christ,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Weekly American Anglican Council message (August 1)

Via email, the weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson from August 1 [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ Jesus,

Lambeth is going into its last weekend, and soon it will be time for all of the bishops in attendance to hold hands, sing "Kumbaya" and go home. So what is happening in these closing days, and what might the bishops be bringing home with them?

On July 29, the Archbishop of Canterbury and convener of the Lambeth Conference gave a speech, in which he opined that the official Conference statement will speak from the center - but then he had to clarify what that means. It apparently does not mean the midpoint between two extremes, but rather from the heart of our identity as Anglicans. When you see language like that, you know that you are being set up. He has first of all posited that the revisionists are an extreme, and likewise the orthodox conservatives are an equal extreme. Those who stand for 2000 years of orthodox teaching and practice have, by fiat of Dr. Williams, become an extreme, and different from where he stands, which is vaguely described as "from the heart of our identity as Anglicans...and that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ."

Excuse me, but I believe that description of "the centre" is exactly where the orthodox see themselves standing. If he thinks the center of orthodoxy is somewhere else he is once again seriously mistaken.

He then begins to use squishy, TEC-like words when he speaks of an "intelligent generosity" to be born. I would agree with him that it is important to know and understand what each group really means and needs, and a win-win approach such as put forward in the popular book "Getting to Yes" would require such, but all of this pre-supposes that the issues can be resolved. If Dr. Williams understood, really understood, the issues, he would have to come to the sad conclusion that unity is no longer possible or even desirable at this time.

Dr. Williams has stated in the past that there is no theological divide between TEC and the Communion. The truth is that his examination of TEC was done while he had his eyes firmly closed. The American Anglican Council put into his hands (actually in the hands of his Lambeth Palace staff, to be given to him) prior to the New Orleans TEC House of Bishops meeting, a compilation showing TEC's lack of compliance with the Dar es Salaam requirements. It wasn't a text of our writing; we simply printed - unaltered - the words of senior TEC leaders, including Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, which, in page after page, documented TEC's theological deviation from orthodox Anglican belief and practice.

Did he read it? Going into the HOB meeting Dr. Williams either knew or should have known of TEC's words and actions after Dar es Salaam. The AAC's document gave him the first-hand research he needed to make a decision, and the truth was that TEC's level of compliance was abysmal. Yet, perhaps in this same spirit of "intelligent generosity," he declared what was not compliance in any sense to be good enough. Dr. Williams is now faced with a Solomonic decision and he can't bear the price of that decision, so he writes in circles leaving everyone wondering exactly what he is saying and why.

Is the desired outcome to keep both TEC and the orthodox in the Communion, but to marginalize the orthodox so that they are rendered impotent? In Dar es Salaam, Dr. Williams urged the Primates to accept a plan to push all of the former TEC congregations and clergy back into TEC under so-called Windsor Bishops. After apparently heated negotiations, the Primates agreed to that conditionally, with an exception given to CANA and AMiA, since they already had bishops who are resident in the USA. In exchange for all of this, TEC was supposed to agree to make certain changes. TEC didn't make any changes, TEC rejected the alternative oversight scheme, and the overseas connections continued to grow as more churches and then a diocese left.

Dr. Williams and his coterie have not given up on this idea of forcing the departed congregations and dioceses back into TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada), only now they are using the term Communion Partners in one instance and Anglican Pastoral Forum in another. This is a serious matter on several levels. Firstly, it is based on a false supposition that those who have left would willingly go back to the increasingly pantheistic provinces from which they fled. Secondly, the idea of forcing congregations back into TEC and the Canadian church clearly shows a lack of understanding as to how far these bodies have deviated from historic Christian belief and how determined they are to maintain their current direction. Does anyone really think TEC or their Canadian brothers will abide by any sort of moratoria? Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

Buried well within the Windsor Continuation Report is a sentence worth flagging: "We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in the Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion." When Archbishop Clive Handford was further questioned on the Report, Steve Waring of the Living Church noted that Handford advised that the Windsor Continuation Group would not permit any new parish or diocese to "opt out" of its diocese or province. Other reports from the Windsor Continuation Group indicated that the moratoria would be on 1) PUBLIC parish same-sex blessings/weddings and 2) consecrations of homosexual bishops. The inference is that private blessings of same-sex unions would continue along with ordinations of actively homosexual priests and deacons.

Additionally the Report called for an Anglican Pastoral Forum (Panel of Reference redux?) which would act quickly (is that Anglican?) to mitigate conflict. How would this be staffed and funded adequately and how would this be actually enforced with any muscle? Handford then used an analogy which was astonishingly patronizing at best and seriously misconstrued at worst. He compared those North Americans who have fled the abuse of TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada to those who in a family aren't getting on: "It's a bit like having a member of the family who is not getting on with the family, having an aunt or uncle who can take them under their wing while they work for the restoration of the family."

Dear Archbishop Handford, the problem is not the child who flees physical and emotional abuse at the hands of a pathologically flawed parent; it is the pathology, spiritual or physical, of the parent(s) who abuse their children. In Atlanta, USA, an abused child was mistakenly sent back to live with the parent who had done the abuse, and when the child was killed by the parent, the authorities began pointing fingers at each other. You will not send us back to suffer under TEC, full stop. TEC is committed to revisionist theology that threatens the souls of those who believe its teachings, and it is committed to the homosexual agenda of full parity (if not more) in the church, and TEC will not step back from this. Listen to what TEC is saying - and in this case they are telling you the truth - there is no going back for them.

It is alarming that Williams, Hanford, et al. apparently believe in a Pollyanna solution that ignores the hard realities. Pushing forward a Windsor Continuation Group, an Anglican Pastoral Forum, and a Communion Partners Group will not take the air out of the decisions reached at GAFCON. What will work is fully disciplining TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, and taking the Communion down the true middle which is historic Christian Anglican orthodoxy. When TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada fully repent, change their theological viewpoint and behavior and become orthodox again, then talk about reunification of North American churches is appropriate, but not before.

I am afraid that it finally comes down to leadership and whether the leaders have the accurate vision, the full appreciation of the facts on the ground, and the means and resolve to move forward.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Communion Partners could prove Anglican Communion’s undoing

From Anglican Mainstream, an analysis by David Virtue:

Buried deep in the Windsor Continuation report is this paragraph, overlooked by most, but of infinite importance, "We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in the Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion."

This confirms VOL’s belief that the Archbishop of Canterbury IS in fact seeking compliant "Communion Partners" from the Global South in order to do an end run around the GAFCON Primates Council in an effort to isolate mainstream evangelical and Anglo-Catholics who number 40 million of the 55 million church-going Anglicans throughout the world.

VOL has learned that Rowan Williams is under a lot of pressure from an orthodox Church of England bishop to make this plan work. Williams reportedly said that if Jefferts Schori signs off on it, is a done deal. Jefferts Schori will only sign this document if the "Communion Partners" clause is part of the deal so she can sell it to her HoB who will not politely accept the tripartite moratoria.

Politics is everywhere.

GAFCON pilgrims should take note. Rowan Williams doesn’t like you. While he would like you back at the Lambeth table, it will only be on his terms, not yours. This is his show, not the Anglican Communion’s or The Episcopal Church’s. But beware, his sympathies and loyalties lie with Katharine Jefferts Schori and the rest of the liberal Anglican West, not with Peter Akinola and the true Global South. If "Communion Partners" is a done deal, then GAFCON leaders should know that what is in de facto a schism in the Anglican Communion is in fact de jure.

Read it all.

From the other side: Jim Naughton at The Lead

From The Lead at the Episcopal Cafe [boldface mine]:

Be afraid: some of our bishops think the pastoral forum proposal has a head of steam, that it is what Rowan Williams wants and that he has established the credibility at this conference to get it. They don’t go as far as I am about to, but the implication of their thinking is that the Episcopal Church should prepare to distance itself in some way from the Anglican Communion, or accept some sort of reduced status so as not to a) implode; b) compromise one of the few things that makes us attractive to our rapidly secularizing culture; c) betray our consciences on the issue of full inclusion.

Be not afraid: others folks I have talked to say that we should be glad to have had a look at the Windsor Continuation Group’s work in process because it provides an opportunity to make our views known; that the fact that the recommendation for a pastoral forum won’t be voted on by this conference is a good thing; that the fact that the report will be presented to the Anglican Consultative Council for final action is also a good thing because the ACC is the most widely representative of the so-called instruments of union.

Our bishops will talk this over tomorrow at a provincial meeting. . .

Read it all. (But my favorite line is: "compromise one of the few things that makes us attractive to our rapidly secularizing culture" - what a gulf between us!)

Archbishop of Canterbury seeks Lambeth compliant partners from Global South *UPDATED and BUMPED*

Update: So maybe I'm not totally off base in my thoughts below - Matt Kennedy agrees with me (does that give me any street cred?):

. . . There have been two meetings of the Global South, Common Cause, and Communion Partner bishops. I am not breaking news. These meetings have been reported elsewhere. The hope has been to mend fences and begin formulating a common strategy that includes both and inside and an outside track.

The fact is that while orthodox bishops were quite divided coming into Lambeth, the most noticeable shift during Lambeth has been in the direction of reconciliation and unity within the orthodox ranks. Communion conservatives and federal conservatives both on the primatial and episcopal level seem to have realized that though their consciences may lead them in different directions, recrimination serves no one’s best interest. . .

Original post: From Virtue Online, some analysis [boldface mine]:

A rival Global South movement is being set up here in Canterbury in an attempt to divide and conquer the Global South movement by encouraging a Lambeth compliant "Communion Partners" movement in an effort to isolate mainstream evangelical and Anglo-Catholics who number 40 million of the 55 million church-going Anglicans throughout the world.

Between 150 and 200 bishops from 17 provinces of the Anglican Communion met last Tuesday at the Kent University campus, with a number of North Americans who included Common Cause Moderator Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh.

Among the speakers were bishops Michael Scott-Joynt (Winchester), Tom Wright (Durham) and Bob Duncan (Pittsburgh) moderation of Common Cause Partnerships. The Rt. Rev. Ian Ernest chair of CAPA spoke and Presiding Bishop Mouneer Anis addressed the gathering and spoke of the 2009 Global South Conference. They are to meet again, thought this is not certain, a source told VOL.

Senior members of the Global South Primates who were not there included Archbishops Peter Akinola, (Nigeria), Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda), Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya) and Henry Luke Orombi (Uganda), majority representatives of the Global South.

The design of this Lambeth Global South group of primates and bishops, which comes with the full support of Dr. Williams, is to blunt the Global South group of Primates that met in Jerusalem recently which includes Archbishops Peter Akinola, Peter Jensen, Gregory Venables, Emmanuel Kolini, Benjamin Nzimbi and Henry Luke Orombi and Valentine Mokiwa (Tanzania).

The list of 17 provinces includes Hong Kong, South Korea, North India, West Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Southeast Asia, Myanmar (Burma) Papua New Guinea, Jerusalem/ Middle- East, South India, Burundi, the Southern Cone, West Indies, Central Africa and the Philippines.

Together they represent approximately 6 million Anglicans. Deeply involved in this group is said to be Archbishop John Chew of Singapore, Secretary of the Global South Group and Bishop Mouneer of Egypt who is treasurer whose chairman is Archbishop Peter Akinola. Ironically the Assistant Bishop of Singapore, the Rt. Rev. Rennis Ponniah is not present at Lambeth. . .

The formation of a new Lambeth Global South movement in Canterbury would be designed to reinforce Williams' leadership of the Anglican Communion and thus would give support to his policy of non-action in the face of the actions of the U.S. Episcopal Church. Archbishop Williams' underlying strategy is to produce an inclusive church that will sideline evangelicals of the Global South who reject the theological and moral relativism that has emerged in Global Anglicanism.

Chris Smith, the Archbishop of Canterbury's aide de camp is reported to have met with Archbishop John Chew of Southeast Asia and Presiding Bishop Mouneer Anis of Jerusalem and the Middle East -- leaders of center right Communion Partners group, and Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone - a member of the more traditionalist GAFCON primates' council. The Bishop of Durham and other English bishops also met with the primates to formalize a way forward for conservatives amidst the chaos of the Anglican Communion the unfolding train wreck of the Lambeth Conference.

The two conservative factions currently disagree on the best way of responding to the crisis of doctrine and discipline within the Anglican Communion. The GAFCON wing led by seven primates and comprising over 60 percent of the Communion's members, are seeking to reform the Anglican Communion and affirm that Anglican doctrine rather than recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury is the basis of Anglican identity.

The difference between the "Communion Partner" primates and the GAFCOIN primates can best be summed up in the words of Chew when he spoke to the Church Times, "Whether you like it or not, Canterbury has got to take the lead, and we pray for him and wish him well. Archbishop Chew said that he expressed strong support for the recent Sudan statement. . .

Read it all. I don't know if I agree with this analysis. I think both angles can be worked, one inside and one outside the "official" meetings, like Lambeth. While it's true, there are two "reasserter" camps, I think they have a lot more in common with each other than with the "reappraiser" faction. But individual personalities can always get in the way (and David Virtue has been doing this a lot longer than most of us, so. . . )

I do think that it has been most effective this Lambeth that there be a group that did not come, representing some of the fastest-growing areas, like Nigeria and Uganda, and a group that did show up, like the Southern Cone. Only by the absence of some has the gravity and depth of the situation been realized by Canterbury and others. And by having some there able to represent and articulate the concerns of those absent, all those at Lambeth have been able to hear that witness.

American bishops meet, ‘infuriated’ Robinson excluded

From the Living Church:

Despite a personal plea from Bishop Gene Robinson, the bishops of The Episcopal Church adhered to the rules of the Lambeth Conference, which have prohibited the Bishop of New Hampshire from formal participation in the decennial event at Canterbury.

Bishop Robinson said the news was “infuriating,” and that he learned on Saturday he would not be allowed to participate during time set aside Monday afternoon for meetings of bishops from the provinces.

“Well, I guess it makes sense that he wouldn’t be allowed to participate since he isn’t invited to the conference,” said the Rt. Rev. Gordon Scruton, Bishop of Western Massachusetts, during an Episcopal News Service media briefing Sunday evening.

Bishop Robinson wrote about his exclusion on an internet journal he is maintaining during the conference.

“If nothing can be done to change this decision, it will be a particularly painful blow,” he wrote on Saturday. “At our House of Bishops meeting in March, I pleaded with the House not to let Lambeth separate us. For me to be excluded from my own House of Bishops seems especially cruel and unnecessary.”

There was substantive discussion of Bishop Robinson’s exclusion from the provincial meeting when the American bishops gathered, with some pushing for a public statement or resolution to be issued. But a more cautious approach prevailed, according to several who were present. Bishop Neil Alexander of Atlanta addressed the issue during the ENS media briefing Monday night.

“This was not a meeting of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church,” he said. “It was intended as an informal time together.” He added that his understanding was that the purpose of the provincial meetings was to provide a chance to reflect on the events of the conference to date.

During a media briefing Monday afternoon, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was asked why Bishop Robinson did not receive an invitation when his consecrators did.

“The problem that we face within the Anglican Communion is that bishops gathering for the Lambeth Conference represent not only their diocese, but their participation in the fellowship of worldwide Anglican Christians,” Archbishop Williams said. “Where there are bishops whose participation in that worldwide fellowship is for one reason or another questionable, that’s the reason for questioning their participation here.

“I think the difficulty that I faced and some others faced was of those who consecrated Gene Robinson, some or a number later expressed a wish that they hadn’t,” Archbishop Williams said. “Some are retired and of course a great many American bishops have come into office since then. The American House of Bishops corporately asked for forgiveness for offense caused last year. Now you’ll remember that I circulated to all the provinces last year with a request as to whether people thought this was a satisfactory response to the concerns expressed, and you’ll be aware that the Joint Standing Committee and 50-percent-plus or more of the provinces said, ‘Well, that’s probably all right.’ Now that was my basis for saying I don’t think I want to go down the list of consecrators and say yes, no or possibly and the House of Bishops said something corporately which not everyone thought was adequate, but many did.”. . .

Read it all.

Canterbury: This [Lambeth] stands at a crossroads in the Communion

A Lambeth report from Cherie Wetzel covering a press conference with +++Rowan Williams:

Today, after the first press briefing yesterday, we had 20 minutes with Rowan. I am not being disrespectful in calling him that. Today, there were no fancy vestments and no lofty processions. Just a man in a black shirt and black suit given a job to do. He came to the pressroom, filled to overflowing with scribbling people and flashing cameras, and after a short introduction, explained to us what his purposes and intentions were in the design of this conference. I felt he was more candid than he was in New Orleans last September at the House of Bishops’ meeting. Granted, the situation is much more perilous today than it was then for the Communion and individual provinces within the Communion. He spoke simply and distinctly. He didn’t dodge any of the questions asked him. Today, I had an opportunity to appreciate the intellect and the character of the university professor, the man who took this job after begging not to be given it. . .

q Did GAFCON make the covenant more imperative? No. We will argue and continue to make our case with the Gafcon people after the conference ends.

q Your statement of government of the Communion by covenant and council. What does that entail? Cleaning house for serious debate. Not every province will desire to be bound by a covenant. . .

q What in human sexuality do you believe is wrong in terms of sexual behavior? Any relationship outside a public covenant of mutual love, in the presence of God is outside my belief. I believe that sex outside of marriage is not part of God’s plan. The Anglican Communion has spoken adequately on the issue of homosexuality and I will adhere to those policies and decisions. . .

q Follow up question: CAPA bishops said they would not come if the consecrators were invited and their voices represent the majority of Anglicans in the Communion. How did you make that decision? I told each of them that their voice matters and we need to hear from them. I can’t invite the bishops of 70 million and not invite the bishops of 2 million. We don’t have that kind of parity or power politics in the Communion. Every voice counts.

q Does their absence devalue the statement that will be produced? There is a grave disquiet about their absence and a serious criticism that must be addressed. We will do so in the next 12 days. . .

Read it all.

Time for the Gamaliel principle

From Brad Drell, some thoughts on the future of the Anglican Communion [boldface mine]:

. . . On a personal note, it dawned on me that Provincial Synod is coming up for Province VII, and then General Convention 2009 in a year, which as I get older seems like less and less time. Lately, I’ve been feeling like, well, not going. Getting a note from my doctor or my wife saying I’m too well to attend these meetings. Of course I am going to go and do my duty. Mostly to vote no at GC2009. No to whatever comes up. That was Bishop Robinson’s strategy to kill my prison ministry resolution in the structure committee, despite the sheer number of sponsors I had on the other side of the sexuality issues signed up on the measure. It came from me, so it had to die, despite the fact that this same resolution was passed at GC2003, with only a few changes made to update it for GC2006.

At one time, I had some hope for reconciliation, after participating in the exercises here in Western Louisiana. I simply don’t think it is possible anymore. I don’t think anyone else really thinks it is possible anymore. If some sort of structural relief were to come in which I, as a conservative, Bible-believing Christian who is about equally evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, could remain in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion with integrity, I would take it. So would a lot of other people, including quite a few solid Episcopal bishops. Frankly, folks, it just isn’t going to happen. I’ll be cheering the loudest if it does. But, it is something the liberals just can’t give.

The only thing Canterbury could do to help this situation is to recognize those who have left TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada as Anglicans as well, and then see which part of the Anglican Communion prospers under the Gamaliel principle. He wouldn’t need anyone else’s approval to do that symbolically. Short of that, I think the Anglican Communion is pretty much over, as is the Church of England.

Read it all.

Archbishop of Canterbury delivers Lambeth Conference presidential address

From EpiscopalLife Online, the presidential address by Archbishop Rowan Williams from Lambeth today [boldface mine]:

As we begin our work together, we're bound to be very much aware of people's eyes upon us. There are expectations among our own people -- both hopes and fears. There are expectations among the representatives of the world's media -- and plenty of stories already which seem to know better than any of us what is going to happen. I saw the headline "Is this the end of the Anglican Communion". No-one has told us here. And there are our eyes on each other -- perhaps not quite sure yet how it's going to feel, who we're going to be alongside, whether everything will come out right in the sense that after two weeks we shall be able to say something with real integrity that will move us forward in God's way.

We know all that; but we need also to know what most matters -- that God's eyes are upon us and that God has entrusted something to us. In the last few days, we have had a chance to hold that firmly in mind as we have shared our time of retreat. We have reminded ourselves that God has entrusted something to each one of us as a bishop, the care of his people and the taking forward of his purpose for humankind through our share in God's mission. We have been caught up in the infinite consequences of Jesus' life and death and resurrection. We are part of God's way of making those consequences real and liberating for all humanity. So all that is said and done in our context here is in some way to do with this fundamental agenda, deepening our commitment to God's own vision of the world's future in Christ.

But God does not hand out general prescriptions and inspirations: God works through the specifics of the community that is called in Christ's name -- the Church. And the Church is known in diverse forms and traditions. So God has not only entrusted to us the task of sharing in his mission; he has also entrusted to us one particular way embodying and serving this mission. He has entrusted to us this extraordinary thing called the Anglican Communion. And in our time together he is asking us, more sharply than ever before, perhaps, what we want to make of it -- how we use the legacy we have been given for his glory and for the sake of the good news of Jesus Christ.

More sharply than ever? Yes, because we all know that we stand in the middle of one of the most severe challenges to have faced the Anglican family in its history. But at the same time, we shouldn't assume that this is the worst of times. The very first Lambeth Conference met against the background of bitter controversy in Southern Africa and fierce disputes about who was a 'proper' bishop and who wasn't.

And if we go back in Church history to the early centuries of the Christian community, we find once again the record of councils meeting in an atmosphere of some suspicion and fear, with people not being at all sure who was supposed to be in charge and who ought and ought not to be present. We haven't just invented church divisions in the last ten years or so; and there never was a golden age for the Anglican Communion or for the wider Church of God.

When all that has been said, and when we've got things into perspective, though, it's still true that we have some choices ahead of us in these weeks together. And when God gives us choices he also asks us to think and pray about how we make the choices as well as what we actually choose. If what we want more than anything is to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and I'm taking it for granted that is what we want, who alone can make Christ alive in our midst, we shall want to find a way of letting that guidance be as powerful and as real as it could be. So I'd like at this point to say a few more words about the new methods we're using in this Conference, the methods you've been hearing about this afternoon.

Quite a few people have said that the new ways we're suggesting of doing our business are an attempt to avoid tough decisions and have the effect of replacing substance with process. To such people, I'd simply say, 'How effective have the old methods really been?'. . .

The work of the indaba groups and that of these more formal working parties will affect and inform each other in our meetings; and this lays a special responsibility on those who are doing the listening and reflecting for us and who are managing the various 'hearings' that will take place so that all who wish can comment on how some of these matters are advancing and developing. Archbishop Roger Herft has explained something of this process. And our hope is that we shall end up with a 'Reflection' from the Conference that is not a set of resolutions and decisions, but which does genuinely change the situation and take us forward. It's a difficult balance to achieve. All of us are involved in making it work.

But what of these problems, what of the future of the Communion? In what I have said there may be a hint of how we should think about this. Because the greatest need of the Communion now is for transformed relationships. This does not mean simply warm feelings about each other, but new habits of respect, patience and understanding that are fleshed out in specific ways and changed habits -- in responsible agreement and search for the common mind, in constant active involvement in the life of other parts of the family, and, as I suggested in the retreat, in shared commitments to a rule of life and a pattern of prayer, so that it remains possible to see in the other person another believer, another redeemed sinner, another person on the way to transformation in Christ. We need to get beyond the reciprocal impatience that shows itself in the ways in which both liberals and traditionalists are ready -- almost eager at times, it appears -- to assume that the other is not actually listening to Jesus.

For this to be a reality, we must be honest about how deep some of the hurts and difficulties currently go; and we must refresh and reanimate our sense of what our Communion ought to be contributing to the whole ecumenical spectrum of Christian life. We cannot ignore the fact that what is seen to be a new doctrine and policy about same-sex relations, one that is not the same as that of the vast majority at the last Lambeth Conference, is causing pain and perplexity. We cannot ignore the pressures created by new structures that are being improvised in reaction to this pain and perplexity, pressures that are very visible in the form of irregular patterns of ministry across historic boundaries. Perspectives on the situation are very different at the moment. Some in our Communion would be content to see us become a loose federation, perhaps with diverse expression of Anglicanism existing side by side in more or less open competition but with little co-ordination of mission, little sense of obligation to sustain a common set of theological and practical commitments. Some would like to see the Communion as simply a family of regional or national churches strictly demarcated from each other -- sovereign states, as it were, with independent systems of government, coming together from time to time for matters of common concern. Others again want to see a firmer and more consistent control of diversity, a more effective set of bodies to govern the local communities making up the Communion. . .

Is there another option? Along with many in our Communion since the Lambeth Conferences began and international Anglicanism started to have a new kind of visibility, I believe there is; but it will require some of what we take for granted to change. Because it is not an option to hope that we can somehow just carry on as we always have: the rival bids to give Anglicanism a new shape are too strong, and we need to have a vision that is at least as compelling and as theologically deep as any other in the discussion. Without this, trying to carry on as 'normal' will unquestionably drift towards one or other of the options I've outlined, without proper thought or planning or a sense of the cost of each of them to what we value most in our heritage. That is why there is quite properly a sense of being at a deeply significant turning point.

It's my conviction that the option to which we are being led is one whose keywords are of council and covenant. It is the vision of an Anglicanism whose diversity is limited not by centralised control but by consent -- consent based on a serious common assessment of the implications of local change. How do we genuinely think together about diverse local challenges? If we can find ways of answering this, we shall have discovered an Anglicanism in which prayerful consultation is routine and accepted and understood as part of what is entailed in belonging to a fellowship that is more than local. The entire Church is present in every local church assembled around the Lord's table. Yet the local church alone is never the entire Church. We are called to see this not as a circle to be squared but as an invitation to be more and more lovingly engaged with each other. . .

Read it all. If only his vision could be, but the problem is, as I see it, that trust was broken a long time ago, with the actions of former Presiding Bishop Griswold, etc. So you have the issue of no discipline (think of heresy trials in ECUSA that went nowhere) coupled with dishonesty and untrustworthiness, and how can you fit the idea of a covenant or agreement in there? ECUSA at the national level cannot be trusted to keep her word, and so much stems from that fact.

Crack up of Anglican Communion at hand, evangelicals say

From an article by George Conger in Christianity Today:

The crack-up of the Anglican Communion is at hand, evangelical bishops attending the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury tell Christianity Today, and the 400 year old Anglican project appears over.

“I’d like to expect a miracle,” said Bishop Gregory Venables of Argentina, a leader of the evangelical alliance at Lambeth, but said he feared the prospects for the church holding together were grim.

“Humanely speaking there is little hope for even a peaceful separation” between the liberal and evangelical wings of the 80-million member communion of churches, Bishop Venables said on July 18. . .

Of the 880 Anglican bishops, between 200 and 250 will stay away. The total number of ‘no-shows’ will not be known until registration closes on July 20. However the boycott by evangelicals means that bishops from the liberal-leaning Episcopal Church of the United States comprise 1 in 5 of the bishops attending the conference, while world-wide Americans account for only 1 in 40 Anglicans.

In addition to the absence of many of their brethren, evangelicals are not optimistic about the conference’s prospects for resolving the dispute as the agenda has been designed to avoid addressing the contentious issues facing the church has left those conservative Anglicans at Lambeth not sanguine about the conferences prospects. . .

“I don’t have great expectations” for Lambeth, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh said. It was important to give voice to the views of evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics marginalized by the dominant liberal wing of the Episcopal Church, and he welcomed the opportunity for “strengthening the bonds of relationship” with bishops from the developing world. However, he was “deeply saddened” that the gap between left and right now seemed unbridgeable.

The pleas for dialogue at this stage rang false, Bishop Venables said. “Although much has been said about talking, it seems to me that on one is listening,” he said. “I’m on the telephone,” but “no one has called me to say ‘let’s talk’ this over,” Bishop Venables said. . .

Read it all.

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

This week my comments start with the North American scene: the bishop of Central Florida, John Howe, whose Christian orthodoxy is solid but whose sense of strategy sometimes leaves others puzzled, has decided that he needs to part company with the Anglican Communion Network and join the Anglican Communion Institute and its allied group, Communion Partners.

Bishop Howe's relationship with the Anglican Communion Network seemed tenuous from the beginning in the eyes of some, though his diocese was solidly behind it. Now with major departures of congregations and clergy from his diocese in favor of overseas Primatial ties, there has been a shift in allegiance in Central Florida. Bishop Howe has recently, with his diocese, objected to the manner and legality of the depositions that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori imposed on bishops Cox and Schofield, and he was joined by several other dioceses and bishops in this well-justified protest.

TEC bishop John Chane of Washington, DC has gone over the edge, accusing African leaders of treating him and his church as a punching bag. He so dislikes having his heterodox beliefs held up to scrutiny that he accuses those who put the spotlight on him of being "demonic." Now it is one thing to say to a brother, "your beliefs are wrong and your practice is wrong," and when he doesn't respond, to make those same statements before the larger church family. It is another matter to say that someone is in league with the devil, which is what Chane is saying when he uses the term "demonic." This is not the first time the liberal revisionists have resorted to such language. Former Presiding Bishop Griswold did it at the end of the Primates' meeting in Northern Ireland. It marks the level of desperation, when those caught hijacking the Church of Jesus are exposed, for them to demonize their opponents. If one wishes to look at Bishop Chane and his diocese of Washington more closely, they will see a shrinking church, growing more financially troubled by the year, whose main claim to fame at this point is the Washington National Cathedral, a beautiful Gothic edifice. Chane's most recent problem with the orthodox is that we uphold Jesus' own words when He said, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through me." This sits uncomfortably with Chane, a pluralist, who finds this language so narrow. Perhaps if Chane could have been the press officer for Jesus, he would have interrupted Him to say, "What Mr. Jesus means to say is....I'm just one way, there are lots of ways, everybody finds the Father/Mother/Whatever sooner or later, so pick what works for you." Thankfully Chane wasn't around back then.

Moving to the international setting, the recent actions in England which denied any formal and permanent relief to those opposed to the women bishops vote has resulted in much speculation. What will the Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals do? Many may leave, but where will they go? Are the Anglo Catholics welcome to come to Rome en mass or not? Some have suggested they are, some have said no, because the liberal English Roman Catholics do not want an infusion of conservative orthodox Catholics into their church, which would shift the demographics and affect how the Catholic Church in England functions. From other sources we hear that Rome will be welcoming orthodox Anglicans and making them a deal of some sort. Certainly married bishops who take this option will find an obstacle in their path, one that will require setting aside their episcopal garb and office, but for them, that may be a price they will willingly pay.

Archbishop Rowan Williams continues to speak against GAFCON and what it stands for, principally because he can't control it or steer it. Many have called Dr. Williams a man of prayer, others a man of superior intellect, and perhaps both are true. We would look for the fruit of both in his work. What we have seen is a man whose leadership embodies a most unusual approach, one which has not, to date, born constructive results. We don't want to see him step down, but instead we would continue to urge that he address the heterodoxy in the communion which is occurring on his watch. The reality is that, with a tip of the hat to the office, a new order within the Anglican Communion will emerge, driven by the growth and orthodoxy of those who were present at GAFCON in Jerusalem.

To end on a positive note, the Nigerian Anglican Church is very much a church in good order, to which all the bishops are subject, from the bishop of the smallest missionary district to the largest diocese, to the primate himself. His Grace was very much wishing to retire and slow down, and has been saying so for the last two years. Many of us could not see how the realignment could be as strong if he retired so soon. Recently, when he submitted his request to the bishops of the Church of Nigeria in the form of a notice of voluntary retirement as Primate, and before his full term was expired, the request was denied. They requested him to complete his tenure which ends in 2010. Many sincerely sympathize with Archbishop Akinola, recognizing the effort and energy that his job has taken over these last years, but we commend the decision. He will thus stay on as Primate until 2010 and be able to continue working with GAFCON and the Primates' Council.

To God be the glory.

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Canon law "blueprint" being worked on at Lambeth [?!]

Huuummmm. . . . wonder what the real story is here. Very interesting, I would say, if true.

From Ruth Gledhill at the Times (actual news story, not blogging) [boldface mine]:

. . . And behind the scenes the Archbishop - who believes that God takes care of the results only if His people put in the footwork - is engineering a daring and complex plan. Canon lawyers are working on a canon law “blueprint”, an Anglican version of the Roman Catholic code that would provide a basis for legislative unity. It is likely to become a fifth “instrument of communion” to bind the Church, adding to the four that exist - the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the primates.

Dr Williams writes in the foreword of The Principles of Canon Law, which sets out the basis of the blueprint handed to bishops at the conference, that it will not solve the communion's problems, but is a “unique resource for thinking more carefully about the sort of unity and coherence we should aspire to in our fellowship of churches”.

Moderate conservatives are also drawing up plans to allow overseas primates to function in the Episcopal Church of the USA as pastors for evangelical churches offended by the liberal direction. It is hoped that the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, might agree to this to allow the communion to hold together. She is understood to be “aware” of the discussions.

This would leave the primates of Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda, which have flouted the authority of Bishop Jefferts Schori by illicitly consecrating bishops to serve in the US, out in the cold but would permit moderate evangelical bishops and provinces, to stay in the communion with integrity.

Dr Williams's advisers are also working on ways of trying to persuade the US Church not to go any farther down the path of liberalisation and of taking action against provinces that have conducted illicit consecrations.

On the surface, it is all Jesus, God and Holy Spirit at Canterbury. The bishops are hugging and making up.

But behind the scenes it is murder in the cathedral as usual. And Dr Williams is loving every minute.

Read it all.

GAFCON responds to the Archbishop of Canterbury

From here [boldface mine]:

The Global Anglican Future Conference gathered leaders from around the Anglican Communion for pilgrimage, prayer and serious theological reflection. We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for engaging with the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration. We wish to respond to some of his concerns.

On faith and false teaching. We warmly welcome the Archbishop's affirmation of the Jerusalem Statement as positive and encouraging and in particular that it would be shared by the vast majority of Anglicans. We are however concerned that he should think we assume that all those outside GAFCON are proclaiming another gospel. In no way do we believe that we are the only ones to hold a correct interpretation of scripture according to its plain meaning. We believe we are holding true to the faith once delivered to the saints as it has been received in the Anglican tradition. Many are contending for and proclaiming the orthodox faith throughout the Anglican Communion. Their efforts are, however, undermined by those who are clearly pursuing a false gospel. We are not claiming to be a sinless church. Our concern is with false teaching which justifies sin in the name of Christianity. These are not merely matters of different perspectives and emphases. They have led to unbiblical practice in faith and morals, resulting in impaired and broken communion. We long for all orthodox Anglicans to join in resisting this development.

On the uniqueness of Christ. We are equally concerned to hear that 'the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God' is 'not in dispute' in the Anglican Communion. Leading bishops in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and even the Church of England have denied the need to evangelise among people of other faiths, promoted and attended syncretistic events and, in some cases, refused to call Jesus Lord and Saviour.

On legitimacy. In the current disorder in the Communion, GAFCON came together as a gathering of lay leaders, clergy and bishops from over 25 countries on the basis of their confession of the common historic Christian faith. They formed a Council in obedience to the word of God to defend the faith and the faithful who are at risk in some Anglican dioceses and congregations.

GAFCON, where the governing structures of many provinces were present, affirmed such a Council of the GAFCON movement as its body to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith.

In their primates and other bishops, the assembly saw a visible connection to the catholic and apostolic Church and the evangelical and catholic faith which many have received from the Church of England and the historic see of Canterbury. It is this faith which we seek to affirm.

On authority. As the Virginia Report notes, in the Anglican tradition, authority is not concentrated in a single centre, but rather across a number of persons and bodies. This Council is a first step towards bringing greater order to the Communion, both for the sake of bringing long overdue discipline and as a reforming initiative for our institutions.

Whilst we respect territoriality, it cannot be absolute. For missionary and pastoral reasons there have long been overlapping jurisdictions in Anglicanism itself – historically in South Africa, New Zealand, the Gulf and Europe. In situations of false teaching, moreover, it has sometimes been necessary for other bishops to intervene to uphold apostolic faith and order.

On discipline. Finally, with regard to the Archbishop's concern about people who have been disciplined in one jurisdiction and have been accepted in another, we are clear that any such cases have been investigated thoroughly and openly with the fullest possible transparency. Bishops and parishes have been given oversight only after the overseeing bishops have been fully satisfied of no moral impediments to their action.

We enclose a response to the St Andrew's Draft Covenant. (See separate post).

We assure the Archbishop of Canterbury of our respect as the occupier of an historic see which has been used by God to the benefit of his church and continue to pray for him to be given wisdom and discernment.

Signed

The Most Rev Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria
The Most Rev Justice Akrofi, Primate of West Africa
The Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of Rwanda
The Most Rev Valentine Mokiwa, Primate of Tanzania
The Most Rev Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of Kenya
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda
The Most Rev Gregory Venables, Primate of The Southern Cone
July 18 2008

Pope rides to Rowan's rescue *Updated*

Update below.

Original: From the Independent (U.K.) [boldface mine]:

The Pope is leading an unprecedented drive by the Roman Catholic Church to prevent the fragmentation of the worldwide Anglican Communion ahead of the once-a-decade gathering of its 800 bishops, which begins today, The Independent has learnt.

In his first public comments on the Lambeth Conference, Pope Benedict XVI has warned Anglican leaders that they must find a "mature" and faithful way of avoiding "schism". On top of this the Pope has:

* Sent three cardinals to the conference in Canterbury, including one of his top aides from the Vatican, to act as personal intermediaries between the two churches;

* Let it be known that he does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church;

* Given behind-the-scenes support to the Archbishop of Canterbury's attempts to hold together the conservative and liberal wings of the Anglican Church, including at face-to-face meetings in Rome.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, faces a near-impossible task as he prepares to preside over the conference, at which bishops from around the world are gathering today for prayer and reflection. The Archbishop is hoping to keep the conference focused on substantial issues facing the church and the world, but it is overshadowed by disputes over women bishops and homosexuality. . .

Roman Catholic insiders say there are two motives behind the Pope's concerns. A decision has been taken within the Roman Catholic hierarchy that it is in its interests for the Anglican Church to maintain unity. Despite speculation about a group of conservative bishops breaking away to the Roman church, senior Catholics say such a move would be "premature", and that they are not encouraging defections. The other reason is that the Pope has developed a strong personal relationship with Dr Williams. "They get on, they are both theologians," a source said last night.

The Pope, who arrived in Australia on Sunday for the World Youth Day gathering of young Catholics and others, publicly expressed support for Dr Williams while remaining careful not to "intervene". The Pope added that the Church needed to avoid "further schism and fractures". . .

Read it all.

Update: Thanks to Dr. Mabuse for the heads up on the publication of the pope's interview and Stand Firm for posting a link to this, primary source material:

SYDNEY, Australia, JULY 14, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the Vatican transcription of Benedict XVI's comments to journalists aboard the papal plane en route to Sydney. . .

Q: While you are in Australia, the bishops of the Anglican Communion, which is very widespread also in Australia, are meeting in Lambeth Palace. One of the main arguments will be possible ways to consolidate communion between the provinces and to find a way to ensure that one or more provinces do not take initiatives that others see as contrary to the Gospel and tradition.

Is there the risk of a fragmentation of the Anglican Communion and the possibility that some will ask to be received into the Catholic Church. What is your hope for the Lambeth Conference and for the archbishop of Canterbury?

Benedict XVI: My essential contribution can only be prayer and with my prayer I will be very close to the Anglican bishops meeting in Lambeth Conference.

We cannot and must not intervene immediately in their discussions, we respect their own responsibility and it is our hope that schisms and new breaks can be avoided, and that a responsible solution will be found given our times, but also in fidelity to the Gospel. These two things must go together.

Christianity is always contemporary and lives in this world, in a certain time, but it renders present in this time the message of Jesus Christ and, hence, offers a true contribution for this time only be being faithful -- in a mature and creative way -- but faithful to the message of Christ.

We hope, and I personally pray, that together they will find the way of the Gospel for our day. This is my wish for the archbishop of Canterbury: That the Anglican Communion in communion with the Gospel of Christ and the Word of the Lord will find the answers to the present challenges.

And from Damien Thompson at the Telegraph (U.K.):

More evidence this morning that Catholic liberals are panicking at the prospect of an influx of conservative Anglicans. They want us to believe that Pope Benedict is "shunning defectors" in an attempt to shore up the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not true.

On his way to Australia, the Pope was asked about the Lambeth Conference. He replied that the Catholic Church should not intervene in its deliberations and that he was praying that there would be no more schisms and fractures. Lambeth Palace and its liberal Catholic allies have now spun this into a papal message of support for Rowan Williams in his attempts to persuade Anglicans not to convert to Rome.

Liberals claim that Pope Benedict has "let it be known that he does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church". He has done no such thing.

The Pope is supporting moves by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to construct a model whereby a group of rebel conservative Anglicans, the Traditional Anglican Communion, can be received en masse and occupy their own structures inside the Roman Catholic Church. This model – which is being constructed in secret – could serve as a blueprint for mainstream Anglicans wanting to convert as a group.

To understand what is going on, it is important to grasp that Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's head of ecumenism who is attending Lambeth, is not a close adviser to the Pope. He and the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger have even clashed publicly in the past. Likewise, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who is also attending Lambeth, is not close to the Holy Father.

Always remember: it was Cardinal Ratzinger who sent a personal message of support to conservative Anglicans meeting in Dallas in 2003, thereby horrifying Kasper – who, as a professional ecumenist, probably is unsympathetic to Anglo-Catholics rocking the boat. But he, thank God, is soon to retire. . .

Read it all. And so Lambeth begins. (And I have to remember that not everything printed is true! I don't know how I forgot that here!)

"Shameful" is the correct term for this *Update* and *Expanded*

Update and Expansion below.

Well, I've already left the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion is beginning to appear in my rear-view mirror, so I don't know why these things still bother me. I think it's the obvious unfairness - so [Bishop] Lamb, uncanonically "elected," is going to Lambeth, and Bishop Schofield, now under ++Gregory Venables, is not.

I have to ask, why is anyone listening to or trusting Archbishop Rowan Williams? Not that I think he is purposely being untrustworthy, but I think he is inept and why out of his depth politically (or maybe it's happening exactly like he would like) - at this point, it's just all so sad.

From Stand Firm, a letter from ++Gregory Venables to those in San Joaquin:

. . . In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message from him: "I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify the terms on which he will exercise his ministry."

This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury is clear, even though we are in somewhat new territory; you remain within the Anglican Communion. Given the rigors of international travel and the work that there is to do in the Diocese, I am in agreement with Bishop John-David's decision not to attend the Lambeth Conference. I am also aware of statements by Bishop Jerry Lamb in which he makes statements and demands that miss the mark of Christian leadership and fall short of what many consider propriety. I would encourage the clergy and lay members of the diocese to ignore this. We are glad to have you as full members of the Southern Cone. As you can see, you are well regarded as members of the Anglican Communion. May God richly bless you!

Read it all.

Update: From FrWes in the comments at TitusOneNine:

Friends,
This is what we were waiting for from the ABC before we could discuss the matter of Bishop Schofield at Lambeth. Our bishop made it clear to us on numerous occasions that he did not want to attend Lambeth this time because it would be almost as hostile as a TEC HOB meeting, little would be accomplished regarding important matters, and it would be very expensive for us to send him. The ONLY reason for him to attend is to be recognized as a legitimate bishop within the Anglican Communion. The letter cited by Abp. Venables recognizes my bishop as a legitimate bishop in the Communion, so now his attendance at Lambeth is unnecessary. I have personal knowledge that this letter is legitimate. This is recognition that was not given to any uninvited bishop. Not a good day for Episcopalians. They wanted a clear dis-invitation or at least words that reject the realignment of the diocese and they got neither.

So everyone gets to make up their own mind, because I don't know. But if this is something positive, ++Rowan Williams once again did not articulate very clearly. (And what in the world is "Anglican Canon Law"?)

Expansion: Of course, Christopher Johnson goes to the heart of it all here:

Three days ago, a commenter at Stand Firm wrote the following:

I regret to say that tonight I have received definite confirmation that Bp. Schofield will NOT be going to Lambeth. I don’t know all the details, but some sort of compromise was worked out where +J-DS will get an official letter from ++Rowan Williams stating that he is recognized as a bishop officially within the Anglican Communion, and in return he will refrain from going to Lambeth. But let their be no mistake; this was a deal forced upon the good bishop. His invitation was withdrawn, at the last minute. I don’t feel free to indicate my source. But it's not longer a rumor. A highly placed source in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has confirmed it. +Schofield is NOT going to Lambeth. He was disinvited.

No, no, no, no, we were reassured by Living Church and Kendall Harmon among others. Ain't true. Don't jump to conclusions. But today we find out from Schofield's primate that:

In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message from him: "I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify the terms on which he will exercise his ministry."

This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury is clear, even though we are in somewhat new territory; you remain within the Anglican Communion. Given the rigors of international travel and the work that there is to do in the Diocese, I am in agreement with Bishop John-David’s decision not to attend the Lambeth Conference.

Given how very nearly perfectly the Stand Firm commenter nailed it, this is going to need to be cleared up the day before yesterday. Did Schofield, in fact, make this decision on his own? If he did, are Venables' stated reasons why he did it? And if he didn't, was he, in fact, forced out?

If Schofield's "exact status...remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law," what does that say about the library of canons that TEO violated in the removal of Schofield and the installation of Mrs. Schori's sock puppet, Jerry Lamb?

Read it all.