The REAL reason Gene wasn't invited?

The REAL reason Gene Robinson wasn't invited to Lambeth...




... only one queen is allowed at a palace Garden Party!

The Archbishop's new Address

Rowan Williams is at it again.

But this time, at least, he's not addressing the glories of indaba or the dangers of rising sea levels or whatever. He's actually addressing the crisis in the Anglican Communion. Well... it's a start.

Once again, he insists that the only way the crisis can be addressed is by a Covenant:

I spoke about council and covenant as the shape of the way forward as I see it. And by this I meant, first, that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church.

and insists that this is the only reasonable way forward;

We need to speak life to each other; and that means change. I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be — a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way). I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration.

But also, once again, the ABC hastens to assure us that this Covenant is not to be "legalistic", but rather something freely chosen by all parties:

good law is about guaranteeing consistence and fairness in a community; and also that in a community like the Anglican family, it can only work when there is free acceptance. Properly understood, a covenant is an expression of mutual generosity.

And this means:

Mutual generosity : part of what this means is finding out what the other person or group really means and really needs. The process of this last ten days has been designed to help us to find out something of this — so that when we do address divisive issues, we have created enough of a community for an intelligent generosity to be born.

In other words, the Covenant requires -- and this Lambeth was supposed to help create -- a kind of "generous listening" which enable each side to hear the other and then -- by some magical alchemy -- move to that "deeper place" where they discover they really are really all the same: to

speak from the heart of our identity as Anglicans; and ultimately from that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ.

Apparently all the "listening" that has been going on for the last decade isn't enough. Apparently each side doesn't understand what the other side actually says, thinks and believes. Apparently we need more listening before we can actually hear each other.

It would seem that the ABC himself is a bit frustrated by how long this is taking, since he uses the majority of his address to speak for each side -- to say what he thinks they ought to be saying and hearing... since obviously they aren't getting the right answers themselves.

And it's a typically eloquent bit of rhetoric, and I'm sure it sounds great in an English accent. But does it make any sense?


The "traditional believer" in Williams' dialog says:

What we seek to do in our context is faithfully to pass on what you passed on to us — Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline. But what are we to think when all these things seem to be questioned and even overturned? We want to be pastorally caring to all, to be “inclusive” as you like to say. We want to welcome everyone. Yet the gospel and the faith you passed on to us tell us that some kinds of behaviour and relationship are not blessed by God.

The "not so traditional believer" replies:

What we seek to do in our context is to bring Jesus alive in the minds and hearts of the people of our culture. Trying to speak the language of the culture and relate honestly to where people really are doesn’t have to be a betrayal of Scripture and tradition. We know we’re pushing the boundaries — but don’t some Christians always have to do that? Doesn’t the Bible itself suggest that?

All very pretty. But look at how Williams casts this. The traditional believer says "we seek to do in our context" -- as if the Gospel the preach is true in some contexts but not in others. And this Gospel is not characterized, in William's depiction, as that which they received from the Lord and pass on... it is the characterized as the Gospel they received from the First World which now advocates the homosexualist heresy. As if that First World is "upstream" and so more authoritative. And this implicit relativism is even clearer in what Williams has these "traditionalists" say next:

Our love and our welcome are unreal if we don’t truthfully let others know what has shaped and directed our lives

... what they are preaching is fundamentally centered in their experience -- "what has shaped and directed our lives" -- rather than in the revelation of Scripture.

The "not so traditional believer" likewise speaks in terms of cultural relativity and "experience", rather than of Scriptural authority. They also appeal to "context" -- "we seek to do in our context" -- to "speak the language of the culture and relate honestly to where people really are". And this is how the revisionist innovations are justified; for such boundary-pushing speak-where-you are behavior is what the Bible itself supposedly suggests and encourages... and not all such boundary-pushing doesn't necessarily "have to be a betrayal of Scripture and tradition". (The "not so traditional believer" doesn't actually prove that it is not such a betrayal, merely throws out the possibility that it might potentially not be.)


But doesn't this completely miss the essential point of the disagreement. The "traditional believers" understand what the "not so traditional believers" think. They understand that the liberals claim that homosexualism is compatible with Scripture. AND THEY DISAGREE. And not just with homosexualism, but with the whole relativistic, culturally-conditioned anti-Scriptural-authority mindset which goes along with that heresy. It's not enough to preach or practice any old thing, saying "oh, maybe this isn't heretical" or "oh, maybe this doesn't violate Scripture and Tradition." You have to prove it doesn't violate them before beginning to move forward (or, perhaps, backward) on the possibility can even be contemplated. And you especially shouldn't be implementing a teaching or policy which has been expressly condemned as contrary to Scripture and Tradition by the Communion as a whole. (Lambeth '98 resolution 1.10 anyone?)


And here is where Williams' "explain each side to the other" presentation is so disingenuous. Because he depicts the "traditional believers" as if they spoke this same culturally-conditioned language. They preach not the Gospel they receive in the Bible - the authoritative teaching of Scripture and Tradition... no, they preach the Gospel they got some years ago from the First World. (Presumably, if a different gospel were preached back then, they'd now be preaching that different gospel instead.) They don't speak an objective truth, given to the saints once for all and for all mankind, but they preach a message which is only for their "context".

To see this in action, look at how Williams characterizes their concern over the effects of First World homosexualism. Is it a concern over the abandonment of the Faith, the spreading of a false gospel and the damnation of souls? No -- it's concern over interfaith relations with Muslims and the ramifications it has in their particular "context":

Your decisions make a vast difference to us. In this world of instant communication, our neighbours know what you do, and they see us as sharing the responsibility... Imagine what it means when those neighbours are non-Christians, delighted to find a stick to beat us with. Imagine what it is to be known as the ‘gay church’ in a context where that spells real contempt and danger.

And the "not so traditional believers" respond in kind -- to cease their aggressive revisionism on the homosexualist issue would be "a betrayal" of their gay and lesbian members, for it would mean rejecting their "gifts" and instead, by not supporting their sexual and civil rights through full inclusion in the sacramental life of the church (marriage & ordination) would be to put them at risk because "they’re still at risk in our society, still vulnerable to murderous violence."

The differences over the homosexualist heresy are presented not in terms of Scripture, not in terms of theology, not in terms of belief -- but in terms of "social justice" and "cultural context": the "traditional believers" have to reject homosexualism or they will be attacked by their neighbors (though how this is supposed to apply to traditionalist believers in all parts of the world -- including the U.S. -- where advocating homosexualism does not invite physical violence is not explained)... the "not so traditional believers" have to embrace homosexualism because otherwise the gays and lesbians in their culture will be "vulnerable to murderous violence" (though how the attitudes of a tiny and increasingly irrelevant minority religious denomination is going to make such a huge murder-preventing difference in a post-Christian Hollywood-acculturated secular culture as America is, also, not explained.)

Once again, the whole discussion is made "relative" and "cultural" and "experiential" -- nothing is said about how these reflect fundamentally different (and irreconcilable) attitudes toward God, Scripture, faith and the Church.


In other words, underlying this "instructional dialog" Williams gives us -- his instruction in how each side is supposed to speak to and hear each other -- is inherently flawed -- if not downright dishonest -- in how it presents the "traditional" voice.

Because this isn't the traditional voice, approach or perspective which Williams presents; this is the revisionist approach and perspective, simply speaking with a different set of assumptions and perspectives. It's a cultural and theological relativism depicted as defending a "traditional" point of view on certain issues, yes... but still a revisionist view toward the central questions of theology and Scriptural authority. For it is still a relativism which bases itself not on revelation, not on the Gospel, not on the clear teaching and mandate of Scripture and Tradition... but merely on on context, culture and experience.


This is why Williams' whole appeal to "consent" and "mutual generosity" and "listening" and "covenant" ultimately fails utterly. Because that whole process is based on the idea that there is a "deeper place" -- a "centre" -- where people can meet, listen, and speak "from the heart of our identity as Anglicans."

There is no such shared heart.

The ABC's whole approach only works if you agree on the fundamentals, the principles and the approach. Then you can "meet" at that common ground and discuss how to work forward together onto less essential matters, firmly grounded on the fundamentals you share.

But the two "sides" in the current Anglican crisis do not share the fundamentals. They do not share the same understanding of God, Scripture, or the Church. For one group, the revelation of Scripture has priority and authority; God does not change His will or His word; and the Church is to speak these eternal truths in whatever culture or context she finds herself in. For the other, culture and experience have authority; Scripture must be constantly reinterpreted and reedited to measure up to each generation's new "revelation"; God is constant changing His mind, His Spirit constantly doing some "new thing" or another which can completely contradict past revelation and teaching on even the most fundamental issues.

What we have in the Anglican Communion is NOT two sides which share the basics and disagree on secondary matters or application -- what we have is two sides which disagree on the fundamentals, and are joined together only by the secondary matters of a shared (or, at least, overlapping) liturgical and historical tradition.


In short, the ABC is asking the different sides to come together on a fundamental ground that they do not share in order work from a common identity out toward the points of disagreement. Which simply doesn't work if the requisite starting point of that process is one of the points of fundamental disagreement.

And this is why, in his little "thought experiment" of the two sides speaking to each other, Williams per force misrepresents one of the sides... he has to, if he's going to present a picture in which they're basing a conversation on a shared common ground which, in actual fact, they do not share. This is why his "conversation" is not actually between a "traditional" and a "not so traditional" Anglicanism, but merely between two factions of "not so traditional" Anglicanism, each speaking to a different context or culture... but neither basing its position on revelation, the authority of Scripture, or the unchanging will of God.


And where does Williams' heart lie? Well, it should be clear from his pre-ABC days of advocating for homosexual marriage and knowingly ordaining practicing homosexuals. And it should be clear from his choice of which "side"'s approach and assumptions from which to have both groups in his imaginary conversation.

And you can see this in how the liberals in his dialog "spin" the issues. For their complaint to their fellow disputants is:

We want to be generous, and we are hurt that some throw back in our faces both the experience and the resources we long to share. Can you try and see us as fellow-believers struggling to proclaim the same Christ, and to be patient with us?’

But for traditional believers this isn't about "hurt feelings"... this isn't even about the violent cultural or religious consequences of certain beliefs. This is about the fact that the "Christ" being proclaimed by the revisionists is not the Christ of Scripture, but some modern relativist invention and fable. And so, no, they cannot "see [you] as fellow-believers struggling to proclaim the same Christ"... because you have made it abundantly clear, by your own statements, beliefs, and actions, that, whatever it is you are "struggling to proclaims", it is NOT the "same Christ."

Where Williams' heart lies is even clearer, here, in what he suggest each side risks:

For the first speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusation of compromise : you’ve been bought, you’ve been deceived by airy talk into tolerating unscriptural and unfaithful policies. For the second speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusations of sacrificing the needs of an oppressed group for the sake of a false or delusional unity, giving up a precious Anglican principle for the sake of a dangerous centralisation.

We know from what the ABC has said and done before that he does not fear that differences over Scriptural interpretation or Church practices are fundamentally divisive or un-Anglican. But he does feel that to sacrifice the needs of an oppressed group is to make the whole thing hollow, self-serving and pointless; and that for Anglicanism to adopt any sort of "centralization" would be to abandon what is essentially Anglican and become something else. Meaning that such a compromise by the "not so traditional believers" is far more troubling and un-Anglican, from Williams' point of view anyway, than what is being asked of "traditional believers." So that, even in this already-distorted presentation of the "traditional" voice, his clear sympathies remain with the revisionists.


Because, you see, the kind of "centralization" for lack of which the Anglican Communion (or, rather, the 5 million at its liberal fringes) are disintegrating is not a "papal" centralization of international law or archepiscopal authority. It is, rather, a common "center" around obedience to Scripture and Tradition -- to the clear teaching of 2000 years of Christian (including Anglican) thought and practice. It is precisely because the Anglican Communion doesn't have this kind of "centralization" (a centralization to which, it seems, Williams also objects) that it doesn't have that very "deeper centre" or "shared heart" from which Williams wants it to speak... and, without which, all Williams' theories and procedures collapse into nothing but impotent, meaningless verbiage.


After the past 10 years of conversations, listening, meetings, and committee after committee, you'd think Williams would have grasped that basic difference. Would have managed to realize that the essential issues under dispute mean that the very "common ground" to which he calls everyone to return for yet more "listening" and "conversation" and "generosity" is not, in fact, common ground... but the subject of the fundamental dispute.

Everyone else has figured this out by now. (Some, like those in the Continuing Church movement, figured it out decades ago!) You'd think Williams would have figured it out too.

But, judging from the archbishop's latest address... well, I guess not.

Lambeth Reflections -- "A Lambeth Happened"

The one "official" document being put out by Lambeth is not any of the WCG "lead trial balloons" circulated for discussion, but the "Lambeth Reflections" document which is expressly designed simply to report that open-ended unresolved discussions took place:

Indaba is open-ended conversation, which doesn't begin by looking for results or feedback. The final document must be faithful to the indaba process: it will therefore be descriptive of the totality of the engagement which the bishops have undertaken under God.

And now the "first draft" -- sort of a brainstormed outline and list of statements, describing the discussions, to include -- has been released.

The first portion (6 sections of 15) simply says that a Lambeth Conference happened, thanks people for helping a Lambeth Conference to happen, and describes the schedule and processes by which it happened. In other words, Canterbury Anglicanism's usual approach of "progress by stating the status quo".

Then, having been told that a Lambeth occured at which things were discussed, we get a list of some of the things discussed. A number of these are simply stating the obvious. Another Anglican passtime.


Here are some additional highlights. If you aren't yet ashamed to be affiliated with a "church" group whose highest levels can't produce anything more substantive or Christian than this garbage, then you ought to be ashamed of yourself for not being ashamed of it.


On Scripture:

We believe the scriptures to be primary, but read them informed by tradition and reason and with regard for the cultural context. We find biblical scholarship a helpful tool to unpack the scriptures, but cannot avoid a divergence in interpretation, which leads to confusion.

I.e. we agree that Scripture is primary, but disagree completely on how to read them, what assumptions to bring to that study, and what the Scriptures actually say. How typically modern Anglican: "we all agree to statements on the meaning of which we disagree, but that's okay because we've agreed to disagree about what exactly what we've agreed on means."


On Worship and Belief:

Anglican worship encourages local freedom and inculturation, but values common structure and common prayer across the Communion. We recognise the relationship between liturgy and doctrine - worship shapes belief.

We agree to value a common structure as long as we can freely put completely different things within that structure. Those culturally-influenced differing contents, in turn, shape differing beliefs.


On Communion Relationships:

There is a strong desire to stay in communion with one another... There is a strong view that the way forward lies chiefly through deepening: person to person relationships, diocesan partnerships, a sense of belonging and mutual affection.

We value our relationship, which is a relationship based on having a relationship.


The proposed Covenant:

There seems to be a general acceptance that we shall have a Covenant.

Consistent with the above, I predict that this will mean having a Covenant that covenants people to having a Covenant. The interpretation or meaning of anything that Covenant actually says or suggests will, of course, differ wildly from place to place; but that's okay, since everyone agrees to disagree about what is actually meant by that to which they've agreed.


The mission of the Anglican Communion:

We value the “five marks of mission”, though we would wish to see greater emphasis on ecumenism, peace-making and global mutuality. We recognise that to speak out for social justice is a part of mission.

So much for the Gospel.

These "five marks of mission", by the way, have been circulating for decades now as part of official Anglican-speak. They are:

• To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
• To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
• To respond to human need by loving service
• To seek to transform unjust structures of society
• To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth

Of course, we've already seen that what the "Good News" actually is thought to be will - like the meaning of Scripture - differ wildly from place to place. Meaning, of course, that the religion (or lack thereof) into which new believers are being baptized and indoctrinated will also differ wildly from place to place. But that's okay -- we agree to disagree about what we agree on.

But the majority of the concern -- as is clear from the relative weight these points get in the draft Reflections -- is on the issues of social justice. (Environmentalism will come soon... they just haven't had those indabas yet.) Which is probably why the revisionists wish that the "five points" would speak more about globalism and political/secular issues and less about these piddling spiritual and theological things we disagree about anyway.


Evangelism: as part of its concern to live out this secular non-religious "mission", here are some of the concerns about "evangelism" which are raised:

Reconciliation [there's that Episcopal buzz-word for their current trendy un-scriptural and bankrupt theological crap, which replaces spiritual concerns of sin, salvation, and relationship to God with social justice issues]... The Church needs to be watchful of the migration policies of governments... Demographics and economic decline were identified as factors in some situations. The need to welcome immigrants and those in the urban drift was expressed... The needs which confront the church are many but there is inadequate income for undertaking the mission of the church [yeah... especially those places like the Episcopal church, whose membership is declining faster than any other Christian group, which is driving out and suing members, and which is spending millions of dollars annually on the legal fees required for that self-immolation]... There must also be a compassionate community, the enabling of others by the leadership of the church, and the marginalized must be kept in focus [we all know who the "marginalized" in PEcUSA are... they're the ones who have been kept in focus for 30 years now while others (e.g. traditional and orthodox Anglicans) are driven out. This isn't about bringing the "Good News" to those on the margins, this is about making the abandonment of that Good News by certain marginal groups the central focus of the institution]... HIV and AIDS and other pandemics – The church needs to be involved in advocacy, awareness building, pastoral care, and the provision of health care facilities for those affected...

You'll look in vain for any sense in this section of Evangelism as bringing a clear Gospel message of salvation and the Lord Jesus Christ to all the world. No, the "prophetic voice" of this particular mission is:

human rights, environment, migrant workers, HIV and AIDS, and others;

One of the "best" suggestions for "evangelism" in this pathetic document is this one: "Reconciliation within faith communities through our common identity". Ah, that would be reconciliation between groups which don't have a common identity based on their common identity. I get it. Just like the Covenant and the authority of Scripture. Right.


The less said about the vision of what role the "Anglican Communion" is supposed to play in this "evangelism" and "mission" the better. Besides, you can sum it all up as "To facilitate communication and interaction between different groups doing social justice work, peace work, and preaching contradictory religions."

There is one thing which the Communion is supposed to be against, however, as part of its contribution to "evangelization" of this new Anglican "mission":

Support those who are isolated in their dioceses by initiatives such as that by Gafcon

(I guess this explains the ABC's new 'Global South' group designed to undermine GAFCon) and one positive statement of the substance to which the Communion is supposed to contribute:

Make support for the Millennium Development Goals and support for HIV and AIDS ministry a primary focus.

Section D, "Social Justice", gives a clear summary of Lambeth's Vision for what being an Anglican Christian means, what its "evangelical" message is, and how it is to live out the "mission" of bringing this new emptied-of-Christian-spiritual-content gospel to the world. But don't despair about the one obvious glaring omission in this statement... the Conference hasn't gotten to its indabas on environmentalism yet, so that's sure to get included as well in the final "Reflections" document.

The MDGs are seen as a very good framework for engaging with social justice issues across the Communion at Provincial, Diocesan and Parish level... Through education at every level (in the Diocese, Parish, Theological institutions and Schools), formally and informally, social justice issues should be addressed regularly and systematically. As Bishops, we must model and encourage others to live out their faith in Christ in a way which demonstrates our commitment to these issues. Taking due regard of local contexts, we commit ourselves to advocating and lobbying (government, agencies, business, ecumenical, inter-faith partners and any other appropriate agencies or bodies) on the many issues of social justice we find in our world. We commit ourselves to discerning and interpreting local needs in a way that leads to action, because this is being prophetic. The Bishops role in all of the above is to enable communities of faith to be agents of transformation and reconciliation.

Of course, none of these things are, themselves, un- or anti- Christian (though the way certain folks may chose to implement some of them -- e.g. PEcUSA's homosexualist heresy -- certainly are)... but neither are they the heart of the Christian message. The Good News of Christ's divinity, His resurrection from the dead, our redemption from sin, our salvation to eternal life, and the coming of the Kingdom of heaven are all totally absent from this "Canterbury Anglicanism", whose members cannot agree on any of these beliefs.

We have, instead, removed the root, trunk, and most of the branches of Christianity... and now eagerly focus on particular fruit on the remaining branch. Well, I can tell you what's going to happen now that you've removed the root and trunk... that branch is going to die and the fruit is going to rot. (Though, of course, rot is a good thing according to Dr. Schori...)

Welcome to the Brave New World of Lambeth-Anglican -- Lamblican -- "Christianity".

Who needs a Pastoral Forum?...

... just use a bucket of water. Hey, it worked for Dorothy!

You and your little dog too! EH heh heh heh heh heh heh.....

Deja vu all over again for yet another time

The dreaded Windsor Continuation Group has issued its much-awaited third discussion paper, preemptively decried among main stream media journalists, in the face of all the evidence, to be herald to a new Inquisition and a papal Anglican Communion. (Cue villain music.)

And it turned out to be a real tempest after all!

No doubt all the usual Anglican blogs will be analyzing this all day.

• Those who still retain a grasp on the bare minimum of sanity, logic, and historical awareness will recognized this statement -- which, I remind you, is merely a "talking points" memo issued by a non-legislative committee for purposes of discussion -- for what it is: yet more nothing.
• The "look for any excuse to justify not doing anything" institutionalists, who desperately need more and more justification for their ingrained habit of rejecting the faith for the sake of staying in the organization, will - yet again - clutch at straws by telling us what a hopeful, positive sign this is, with many excellent new elements and possibilities, and that we should all continue to do nothing rash for another decade or so to see how it plays out this time.
• The revisionists, heretics and apostates will run about shrieking how this is a terribly invasive idea, smacks of un-Anglican popery, and anyway, only General Convention (or each diocese, or the HoB... or whichever group looks least likely to approve it and has its next meeting scheduled as far in the future as possible) can really respond to it anyway. They've already started too.

Meanwhile, I'd like to add to the discussion by examining what "new elements" this "memo for discussion" brings to the table. If any.


The memo starts up with a rather bland summary of the existing situation:

The failure to respond presents us with a situation where if the three moratoria are not observed, the Communion is likely to fracture. The patterns of action currently embraced with the continued blessings of same-sex unions and of interventions could lead to irreparable damage.

No, REALLY? I never would have guessed.

BREAKING: Windsor Continuation Group announced that the sun rose today. Reporters shocked; liberals scandalized.

Then it goes on to give its "new proposals". It suggests that some interim authority or process needs to be put in place to hold everyone together until a Covenant can be produced. (Yeah, like the Covenant is going to fix anything, or the pansexualists will pay any attention to it). So the WCG observes:

In the period leading up to the establishment of a covenant, however, there are urgent issues which need addressing if we are going to be able to get to the point where such a renewal of trust even becomes possible.

Golly, where I have I heard that before? Oh yeah -- the primates at Dar Es Salaam a year and a half ago.

The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant.

The WCG wants to set up a new "Forum" to mediate disputes and oversee the "continued" implementation of the recommendations of the Windsor Report:

the swift formation of a 'Pastoral Forum' at Communion level to engage theologically and practically with situations of controversy as they arise or divisive actions that may be taken around the Communion.

Hang on, this also sounds familiar.

The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church.

The WCG's Forum must have members appointed by the ABC and represent points of view representing the "breadth" of the Communion as a whole. (I.e. it must have incorporated into its structure precisely the same incoherence and incompatibility which has paralyzed the Communion... so that by representing everyone it can be sure to accomplish nothing.)

The President of such a Forum would be the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would also appoint its episcopal chair, and its members. The membership of the Forum must include members from the Instruments of Communion and be representative of the breadth of the life of the Communion as a whole.

That, too, sounds rather familiar.

This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.

And the mission and mandate of the WCG's proposed new Forum?

The Pastoral Forum should be empowered to act in the Anglican Communion in a rapid manner to emerging threats to its life, especially through the ministry of its Chair, who should work alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury in the exercise of his ministry. The Forum would be responsible for addressing those anomalies of pastoral care arising in the Communion against the recommendations of the Windsor Report. It could also offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the Communion might be appropriate where any of the three moratoria are broken.

Now that sure sounds a lot like:

negotiate the necessary structures for pastoral care which would meet the requests of the Windsor Report (TWR, §147–155) and the Primates’ requests in the Lambeth Statement of October 2003... authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme, including the criteria for participation of bishops, dioceses and congregations in the scheme... monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report... consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report §157 [Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented] should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal Church and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion... take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this scheme and report to the Primates.

In short, this much-dreaded WCG suggestion of a Pastoral Forum is nothing more than the Pastoral Council proposal all over again. Heck, they couldn't even come up with more than 50% of a new name for it!

And we all know how effective that was -- UTTERLY INEFFECTUAL.


Let's do a quick historical review, shall we?

• PEcUSA was warned that, if they continued their advocacy of the homsexualist heresy by ordaining an openly gay bishop (despite the fact that this is no more a violation of Scripture and Tradition than the ordination of such individuals to the deaconate and priesthood as well) there would be consequences. They ordained Gene Robinson anyway.
• Then there was a whole flurry of meetings and consultations which resulted in the Windsor Report, saying (section 157) that if PEcUSA didn't stop with the homosexual ordinations and "union" blessings, there would be consequences. They kept up with them anyway.
• Then there was the Primates meeting at Dar Es Salaam which issued a statement -- with which Dr. Schori agreed at least until she was safely back in the U.S. and could say that she had no power to agree and never actually agreed anyway -- saying that if they didn't change their course, there would be consequences. They stayed on the same course anyway.
• Then various people suggested that if PEcUSA didn't make adequate response by fall of 2007 they wouldn't be invited to Lambeth. They didn't make adequate response. Williams invited them to Lambeth anyway.

And now the Windsor Continuation Group is saying that yet another committee ought to be formed to monitor the situation and, if things don't change, "offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the Communion" should result.

Wanna bet that, if PEcUSA (to the surprise of all) still doesn't change direction, the Forum might just recommend... the formation of another committee?!! Assuming, that is, that the WCG's proposed "Pastoral Forum" actual manages to do what the Primate's proposed "Pastoral Council" never managed to do... i.e. anything at all.


More than that, you'll recall that the Windsor Report clearly stated that the irregular boundary-crossings which had resulted from reactions to PEcUSA's apostasy were not as serious a problem as that apostasy itself. That the unilateral abandonment of Christian and Anglican standards by PEcUSA in gay ordinations and marriages was the chief cause of division, and these boundary-crossings simply a response to them. All three issues were cited as inappropriate, but the boundary-crossings issue was -- because it was caused by and a reaction to the former -- the least serious.

All sense of that perspective is lost in the WCG's report. It makes no difference of nature or degree in its call for

the complete cessation of a) the celebration of blessings for same-sex unions, b) consecrations of those living in openly gay relationships, and c) all cross border interventions and inter-provincial claims of jurisdiction.

And its threats of "discipline" (even if they amount to nothing more than proposing a discussion about the possibility of forming another committee to discuss the possibility of discipline) apply equally as well:

It could also offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the Communion might be appropriate where any of the three moratoria are broken.

And you get an indication of just what sort of non-existent support to Episcopalians who wish to flee their organization's apostasy (assuming there are any such Episcopalians left, and it isn't now just institutionalists willing to sacrifice all fidelity to the faith for the sake of fidelity to the unfaithful organization) when the WCG's report says:

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.

I've already pointed out, by examining the details of PEcUSA's CPP program and membership, just what an empty, meaningless shell it is -- nothing more than a celebrated version of existing policy. Yet such emptiness is, apparently, exactly what the WCG is praising and encouraging.

So, there you have it, folks. The earth-shattering suggestions of the Windsor Continuation Group. And they do, indeed, continue -- continue to offer simply more of the same: talk and no action, endless committees, and vague, substance-less, meaningless, impotent hand-waving at irrelevant and unenforceable "consequences". Committees forming committees forming committees...

Congratulations people.

The Anglican Communion has finally gone completely fractal. Or, to put it more bluntly: FRACT UP

Now go away, or we shall committee you a second time!