Friday, March 26, 2010

No kid gloves here

The team at Fulcrum are leading from the front with this statement: a direct challenge to TEC and to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I would be interested in responses, particularly from within TEC itself. Charges of dissembling against a Christian organisation are serious. The evidence seems strong ...

Where do we go from here?

Fulcrum Leadership Team

co-published with Church of England Newspaper (26 March 2010)

The bishops and Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church (USA) have consented to the election of Mary Glasspool as bishop suffragan in the diocese of Los Angeles. That consent sadly confirms that TEC is determined to ignore all the repeated appeals of the wider Communion and, in the closing words of The Windsor Report, ‘walk apart’.

Since that report in 2004, it has been clear that the moratorium on same-sex blessings was being ignored in a significant number of dioceses, despite assurances otherwise. It has, however, been possible to claim that TEC was strictly adhering to the Communion’s repeated requests for a moratorium on “the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges”. Such a claim is now impossible. We are now indisputably in a radically new situation. TEC as a body has determinedly, perhaps irrevocably, chosen autonomy over “communion with autonomy and accountability”.

It is important that this is not simply a matter of disagreement about biblical interpretation and sexual ethics although these are central and important. It is now very clearly also a fundamental matter of truth-telling and trust. In September 2007, at the Primates’ request and after meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, TEC bishops confirmed they would “exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion”. They made clear that “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons” were among such candidates.

When asked recently how they could therefore now proceed to confirm Mary Glasspool in the light of that assurance, one TEC bishop said this simply expressed where the bishops were in 2007 and they may be somewhere different now. At least where they are now is crystal clear. Both moratoria have been rejected. In addition, TEC is pursuing legal actions, with widespread concern its leadership intends aggressive action against the diocese of South Carolina which upholds the Communion’s teaching.

The key question is ‘what happens next?’. This week a Fulcrum statement declared, ‘Actions have consequences’. The first and most obvious consequence of this development is that TEC as a body has revealed it is incapable of signing the Anglican covenant. This is not simply because they have once again categorically rejected the pattern of life together that it articulates and the shared discernment it presupposes. The more serious and deep-rooted problem is TEC’s particular polity (which allows for confusion and assertion in the place of coherent policy and practice) and their understanding of how the Spirit leads them. These make TEC as a province incapable of making meaningful or credible commitments to the Communion about their future conduct. The only hope now is for TEC dioceses to reject TEC’s path by committing to the covenant and for such commitment to be recognised by the Communion.

But what about TEC and the current Communion? This emphatic further breaching of the bonds of affection shows that not only TEC’s promises about the future but its apologies and expressions of regret for the past are worthless. In particular, their 2006 regret relating to the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire - which the Primates accepted and which Windsor said “would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion” - is now shown to be either fraudulent or short-lived. If the Communion is committed to the Windsor and covenant vision of communion life and if the Communion is to keep wrestling with integrity in relation to its teaching and practice on sexuality then, despite the financial implications, it must now proceed in its common life without TEC.

The nature of the Communion’s structures at present is such that effecting this distancing will require clear and decisive action by the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the very least he needs to make clear that bishops participating in the May consecration in Los Angeles will thereby exclude themselves from being invited by him to participate in the Instruments or to represent the Communion in any form.

Unless he does this all that the Instruments have repeatedly said in relation to TEC’s conduct will be undermined. The sickness of TEC’s inability to say what it means and mean what it says to the rest of the Communion will then have infected the Instruments and will surely destroy the Communion. The fact the Presiding Bishop of TEC and Ian Douglas are on ‘The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ (which according to the proposed covenant will have a crucial role in monitoring the covenant’s functioning) only highlights the need for decisive action if the Communion and the covenant are to retain any credibility.

In fact, the situation is now such that it may be better for the Archbishop simply to state – as one of the Instruments and a focus and means of unity - that TEC as a body has rejected the Communion’s repeated appeals for restraint, made false promises, and confirmed its direction is away from Communion teaching and accountability. It has thereby rendered itself incapable of covenanting with other churches and made it unclear what it means when it claims to be in communion with the see of Canterbury and a constituent member of the Anglican Communion.

Although decisive action is necessary, Archbishop Rowan’s limited powers within the Communion and his laudable desire to keep on going the extra mile to enable dialogue mean many think it unlikely. Some long ago gave up on him. Many, however, both within the Church of England and the wider Communion (particularly in the Global South which meets next month) have been patient and sought to work with him by supporting the Windsor and covenant processes. They need now to make clear that unless he gives a clear lead then all that he and others have worked for since the Windsor Report and all that is promised by the covenant is at risk because of the new situation in which TEC has placed us.

Fulcrum Leadership Team

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is good that the (self-appointed) Fulcrum Leadership Team in England have finally woken up to the truth about Tec and its temporizing infidelities - but we have been pointing this out for years. Why have they been so slow to see what is before their noses?

Meanwhile, if you want to see real historic Anglicanism (Handel, Parry, 'The Church's one foundation' etc) see the reports on the installation of the new Primate of the Church of Nigeria.
Outis

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Outis
In Fulcrum's defence is the observation they make: that for some years TEC was saying something which - good manners and gracious conversation prevailing - had to be taken at face value and not denied however strong their suspicions may have been.

As for historic Anglicanism in Nigeria, have they changed their tune about the ABC?

Kurt said...

Fulcrum's self-important huffing and puffing will have absolutely zero influence on the decisions of The Episcopal Church. All they have done is to make clear to most American Episcopalians that even the self-styled “moderate” evangelicals in the CofE remain hostile to TEC. Big deal, we already knew that. If anything, they have made evangelicalism even more unpopular in the American Church than it has been up to now. As an “Affirming Catholic”, I encourage them to go even further in discrediting their theological faction with the members of my Church.

Kurt Hill
In historic Bruikleen, (the Brook Lane) NY
Founded in 1637 by Willem Adrianse Bennett

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Kurt
I agree that Fulcrum's statement will have zero effect on TEC, and will do nothing to enhance their reputation with many pundits within TEC (though I assume Sarah who has been commenting recently on ADU will welcome Fulcrum's statement).

But these kinds of reactions work the other way too: is the pathway TEC is on, which now clarifies that many outside observers' suspicions since 2003 are correct (in general terms, that TEC will not conform in any manner to 'the mind of the Communion'), going to influence the response of the Communion through its Instruments to be more favourable to TEC?

I fear an impasse!

Kurt said...

“...in general terms, that TEC will not conform in any manner to 'the mind of the Communion'”--Fr. Carrell

Well, Peter, that’s going a bit far, don’t you think? TEC “will not conform in any manner”? Every Episcopalian I know has no problem saying (or, singing) the Creeds without crossing our fingers. We maintain the historic episcopate (in fact, our Line of bishops is the oldest Anglican Line outside of the British Isles). If anything, the 1979 Baptism and Communion Offices of our Book of Common Prayer are closer to the ancient liturgies than those based on the Book of 1662. We insist that sexual relations outside of a committed, monogamous relationship are not approved of by our Church. While critics can certainly point to eccentric behavior by a few individuals, we can certainly point to such behaviors among individuals in their groups as well.

It comes down to this: either Anglicans are willing to come to grips with the full personhood of all of the baptized, or they will not. Either Anglicans are able to grow in the Faith, embracing contemporary knowledge, or they are not. Anglicans will either emotionally enter the 21st century, or they will not. It very well may be that everyone in what is now the Anglican Communion will have to choose very soon.

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Kurt
In my haste I did not put "the mind of the Communion on same sex partnerships".

Agreed that on many things TEC conforms to the mind of the Communion.

Also agreed that the question of the full personhood of the baptized is at stake. Maybe 21st century Anglicanism cannot contain two majors views of this within one world organisation.

Anonymous said...

RE: "Fulcrum's self-important huffing and puffing will have absolutely zero influence on the decisions of The Episcopal Church."

Well of course it won't -- why ever anybody thinks that Fulcrum wishes to have "influence on the decisions of The Episcopal Church" is anybody's guess, other than that Kurt himself has a rather inflated vision of TEC's grandeur and importance.

RE: "All they have done is to make clear to most American Episcopalians that even the self-styled “moderate” evangelicals in the CofE remain hostile to TEC."

No they haven't. In fact "most American Episcopalians" will never read Fulcrum. And a majority of those American Episcopalians who *do* read Fulcrum's statement will heartily approve of it and greet it with huzzahs and hurrahs and slaps on the back. Keep in mind that the likes of the progressive gay activists in TEC that are represented by Integrity -- like Kurt -- are a teensy teensy sliver of TEC, albeit who have taken over the levers of power in TEC. Thankfully, the number of conservative parishioners in TEC outnumber the foaming revisionists like TEC, still, even after all the departures. Which is why the two different gospels represented within TEC will continue to duke it out, causing appropriate division and conflict within the organization for the next decade and more.

And of course, Fulcrum isn't "hostile to TEC" -- it's merely hostile to TEC's current foaming revisionist leaders. ; > )

RE: "As an “Affirming Catholic”, I encourage them to go even further in discrediting their theological faction with the members of my Church."

Heh. Let's rephrase.

As an “Affirming [Revisionist, who wants desperately to style himself as 'catholic' [sic]”], I encourage them to go even further in discrediting their theological faction with the [foaming revisionists in TEC].

There.

Much better and more accurate.


Sarah

Anonymous said...

RE: "It comes down to this: either Anglicans are willing to come to grips with the full personhood of all of the baptized, or they will not. Either Anglicans are able to grow in the Faith, embracing contemporary knowledge, or they are not. Anglicans will either emotionally enter the 21st century, or they will not."

Rich irony, for of course the number of "Anglicans" [sic] willing to call gay sex holy and blessed grows less and less, as TEC plummeting-decline demonstrates.

Sarah

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Sarah,
Can it really be true that a small coterie can grasp the levers of power of a democratic organisation?

I have to take your word for it ... I know no better. But it does seem strange that TEC is full of orthodox parishioners governed by unorthodox leaders.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter Carrell,

I'm not certain if you ask a philosophical question or a more specific question.

I guess with regards the former it's pretty easy to look at history and see organizations, even entire countries, taken over by people with a "Will To Power" and a complacent, passive constituency that does not have that Will To Power and is not interested in the political process or the military!

And usually -- at least *eventually* -- a rebellion or a mass departure occurs when such a thing happens, even when the teensy non-representative minority at the top does all in their power to punish people who wish to depart the entity [think Berlin Wall, etc.]

I think there's little doubt that *BOTH* rebellions and mass departures ave occurred in TEC in the last six years, which despite the rhetoric of people like Schori, is undergoing a meltdown of epic proportions. It's a sure sign that the masses are extremely unhappy. Organizations don't go through meltdowns like that unless the leadership is . . . "unsatisfactory."

Over here in the US -- to use a non-religious institution -- you have this happening with the American Medical Association. People fleeing, membership plummeting, new entities being formed -- it's now definitely a *smaller* organization that the rival organizations, and yet it was THE physician association for decades.

From a specifics standpoint about TEC -- here are some fun articles for you to ponder -- a short one and a massively long one from the old days of two years ago, which began my predictions of the ideological left triumph in the General Convention 2009:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/5951

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4445/


Sarah

Peter Carrell said...

Thanks Sarah for the articles.
I do not need much convincing that all is not well within TEC, but I also am trying to listen carefully to those over the past few years who have feistily defended TEC!

Are the stats of decline bad? I ask this because a couple of responses I see are (1) but all Western churches are declining, why highlight TEC's figures? (2) yes some members have left for ACNA, but they are only a tiny percentage of the whole membership of TEC!

In this particular context (of this blog) please bear in mind that my church in NZ would not be best pleased to find that TEC had been hounded from the Communion. I think it could accept TEC choosing to sever ties with the AC, but it would not be agreeable (ie at General Synod level) to TEC being expelled or suspended from the AC. That means a minor reason for me not arguing for TEC's expulsion or suspension is that I do not know what the unintended consequences of that might be on my church!?

Anonymous said...

Peter asks:
"Are the stats of decline bad?"
The details have been presented piecemeal on titusonenine. The population has increased in every state and Tec has declined - sometimes more than 24% over 10 yeras - in every one, except SC.
"I ask this because a couple of responses I see are (1) but all Western churches are declining, why highlight TEC's figures?"
Western churches are not all declining, and not at the same rate. Decline happens when birth rates drop and churches fail to retain their young. The majority of Tec are too old, or too disinclined, to reproduce - a point that Kurt keeps missing as he insists with Pollyanna-enthusiasm that it will all turn round again. It won't.

"2) yes some members have left for ACNA, but they are only a tiny percentage of the whole membership of TEC!"

Possibly 100,000 or 12% or more of ASA. Is that 'tiny'? How big is NZ's Anglican ASA? Is it 50,000?
Outis

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Outis
My awareness is that "possibly" means "take care" about claiming too much!

My personal view, having some awareness of the statistics you refer to (and some of the arguments about them) is that another two to three years are required before clarity will be achieved on the difference the formation of ACNA has made to the Anglo-Episcopalian attendance figures.

Anonymous said...

I estimate -- based solely on qualitative analysis, since I don't have a quantitative survey of all those who have left TEC -- that about 1/4 of those who have left went to an ACNA parish.

The vast majority of friends who have left have gone to a non-Anglican entity. They loathe the actions of TEC leaders, and know that they cannot stay in TEC as a result, and generally leave for Rome or the Presbyterians or a non-denominational church.

ACNA is merely another "away stream" of the river flowing away from TEC.

No business organization would get away with the massive decline that TEC has seen. Heads would have rolled long ago, faced with such obvious and radical failure.


Sarah

Anonymous said...

Peter: here is ACNA's own claim from June 2009 of 69,000+ ASA from a 100,000 membership in 700 parishes with 800 clergy:

http://acnaassembly.org/media/ACNA_-_Who_we_are_-_June_09_-_fact_sheet.pdf

Not exactly Korean in size but bigger than ACANZP, I guess. Tec's ASA must now be considerably under 700,000 with these "tiny" secessions. More to follow in the year ahead.
Outis

Peter Carrell said...

Thanks Sarah and Outis for responses.

The way I see it, right now, TEC can (a) hope the losses stop real soon, and (b) discount them at a around 5-10% as "acceptable losses".

The crunch will be in two years time: will ASA show TEC losses at 20-30%, and will ACNA show steady increases, say, a membership of 125,000? Or not?

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter -- please note that those two articles I linked to are not articles about how bad the current leaders of TEC are, but more about the various groupings of TEC revisionists and just how teensy those groups are. The fact that they are teensy does not mitigate their organizational power, nor does it mitigate the complacency and laziness and cowardice of the traditionalists who allowed their power to occur.

The foaming revisionists have always depended on the congregationalism and the passivity of the traditionalist laity in order to achieve their gains. But even that is a two-edged sword, as that same congregationalism ultimately simply leads to departures from the bad organization and the withdrawal of money and time and support. And that is the end game, and what we will see play out over the next decade and more.

Bring the popcorn!



Sarah

Peter Carrell said...

Understood, Sarah!
In one sense the ball is in the progressives' court: they have the high places of TEC, they need to ensure that there is a plentiful supply of troops replenishing the ranks as the aged congregations fade away. "Can they do it?" is, as you say, the great question of the next decade for TEC.

Kurt said...

Hey Sarah, is it really true that you can see Russia from your backyard?

Kurt Hill
In Brooklyn, NY

Peter Carrell said...

That is very witty, Kurt!

Anonymous said...

"Hey Sarah, is it really true that you can see Russia from your backyard?"

Why do you ask, Koit? You could see Little Odessa from *your backyard - if you have such things in Brokelyn. :)

Outis

Peter Carrell said...

OK, I have let those recent posts through, but no more which mock either Alaskans or New Yorkers.