Update from AM:
In a phone conversation from Uganda this morning, Canon Dr Alison Barfoot, the international affairs officer for Archbishop Henry Orombi stated that he had NOT resigned from the Joint Standing Committee, but was expressing his support for Bishop Mouneer Anis.
Canon Dr Chris Sugden
From SF:
The Most Rev. Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
LondonYour Grace,
Easter greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!
In February I read with great interest Bishop Mouneer Anis’ letter of resignation from the Joint Standing Committee. I am grateful for his clarity and honesty. He has verbalized very well what many of us have thought and felt, and inspired me to write, as well.
As you know from our private conversations, I have absented myself for principled reasons from all meetings of the Joint Standing Committee since our Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007.
The first meeting of the Joint Standing Committee was later that year in New Orleans. At our Primates meeting in February 2007, we made certain requests of the Episcopal Church. In our Dar es Salaam communiqué we did not envision interference in the American House of Bishops while they were considering our requests. For me to participate in a meeting in New Orleans before the 30th September deadline would have violated our hard-won agreement in Dar es Salaam and would have been another case of undermining our instruments of communion. My desire to uphold our Dar es Salaam communiqué was intended to strengthen our instruments of communion so we would be able to mature into an even more effective global communion of the Church of Jesus Christ than in the past.
Subsequent meetings of the Joint Standing Committee have included the Primate of the Episcopal Church (TEC) and other members of TEC, who are the very ones who have pushed the Anglican Communion into this sustained crisis. How can we expect the gross violators of Biblical Truth to sanction their own discipline when they believe they have done nothing wrong and further insist that their revisionist theology is actually the substance of Anglicanism?
We have only to note the recent election and confirmation of an active Lesbian as a Suffragan Bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles to realize that TEC has no interest in “gracious restraint,” let alone a moratorium on the things that have brought us to this point of collapse. It is now impossible to regard their earlier words of “regret” as a serious gesture of reconciliation with the rest of the Communion.
Together with Bishop Mouneer, I am equally concerned, as you know, about the shift in the balance of powers among the Instruments of Communion. It was the Primates in 2003 who requested the Lambeth Commission on Communion that ultimately produced the Windsor Report. It was the Primates who received the Windsor Report at our meeting in Dromantine in 2005. It was the Primates, through our Dromantine Communique, who presented the appropriate “hermeneutic” through which to read the Windsor Report. That “hermeneutic,” however, has been obscured by the leadership at St. Andrew’s House who somehow created something we never envisioned called the “Windsor Process.”
The Windsor Report was not a “process.” It was a Report, commissioned by the Primates and received by the Primates. The Primates made specific and clear requests of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. When TEC, particularly, did not clearly answer our questions, we gave them more time in 2007 to clarify their position.
Suddenly, though, after the 2007 Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam, the Primates no longer had a role to play in the very process they had begun. The process was mysteriously transferred to the Anglican Consultative Council and, more particularly, to the Joint Standing Committee. The Joint Standing Committee has now evolved into the “Standing Committee.” Some suggest that it is the Standing Committee “of the Anglican Communion.”
There is, however, no “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” The Standing Committee has never been approved in its present form by the Primates Meeting or the Lambeth Conference. Rather, it was adopted by itself, with your approval and the approval of the ACC. The fact that five Primates are included in no way represents our Anglican understanding of the role of Primates as metropolitan bishops of their provinces.
Anglicanism is a church of Bishops and, at its best, is conciliar in its governance. The grave crisis before us as a Communion is both a matter of faith as well as order. Matters of faith and order are the domain of Bishops. In a Communion the size of the Anglican Communion, it is unwieldy to think of gathering all the Bishops of the Communion together more frequently than the current pattern of every ten years. That is why the Lambeth Conference in 1998 resolved that the Primates Meeting should be able to “exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.” (Resolution III.6).
What has emerged, however, is the Standing Committee being given “enhanced responsibility” and the Primates being given “diminished responsibility,” even in regard to a process begun by them. Indeed, this Standing Committee has granted itself supreme authority over Covenant discipline in the latest draft. Under these circumstances, it has not been possible for me to participate in meetings of the Joint Standing Committee that has taken upon itself authority it has not been given.
Accordingly, I stand with my brother Primate, Bishop Mouneer Anis, in his courageous decision to resign from the Standing Committee. Many of us are in a state of resignation as we see how the Communion is moving away further and further into darkness, especially since the Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam.
Your Grace, I have urged you in the past, and I will urge you again. There is an urgent need for a meeting of the Primates to continue sorting out the crisis that is before us, especially given the upcoming consecration of a Lesbian as Bishop in America. The Primates Meeting is the only Instrument that has been given authority to act, and it can act if you will call us together.
The agenda for that meeting should be set by the Primates themselves at the meeting, and not by any other staff in advance of the meeting. I reiterate this point because you will recall our cordial December 2008 meeting with you, Chris Smith, and the other GAFCON Primates in Canterbury where we discussed the agenda for the Primates meeting to take place in Alexandria the following month. None of our submissions were included in the agenda. Likewise, at the beginning of the January 2009 Primates meeting I was asked to present a position paper on the effect of the crisis in the Communion from our perspective, but I was not informed in advance, so I did not come prepared. Yet, other presenters, including TEC and Canada, were given prior information and came very prepared. I have never received a formal written apology about that incident, and it has caused me to wonder if there are two standards at work in how a Primate is treated.
Finally, the meeting should not include the Primates of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada who are proceeding with unbiblical practices that contradict the faith of Anglicanism. We cannot carry on with business as usual until order is brought out of this chaos.
Yours, in Christ,
The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi
ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA.
xc: Primates, Moderators, and Members of the Standing Committee of the ACC
In an ecclesiological church the Archbishops are an integral part of the “instrument of communion”. When Archbishops cease in likemindedness as ++Henry states, “chaos” ensues in the Communion. Why? Because unity IS the instrument of communion and can only be achieved in likemindedness, which is the “unity of the faith”. Any questions?……..Warren?
Stuck (#1), I think I understand what you’re driving at, but, as usual, disagree with your choice of words. According to the Anglican Communion Official Website, the Anglican Communion is served by four instruments of communion: the Archbishops of Canterbury; Lambeth Conferences; Primates Meetings; and the Anglican Consultative Council.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/index.cfm
If all of the instruments are working as intended, unity could be the result (but not necessarily). I disagree that unity is an instrument. It is a potential outcome of the proper application of the instruments. An onlooker could be excused for wondering if many of the Archbishops are not close to achieving likemindedness that is distinctly unchristian.
I for one am very glad to see this letter from ArchBishop Orombi. Basically, he is saying the ABC to “lead, follow, or get out of the way” (or is it more like “sh*t or get off the pot”). It’s about time that someone put the ABC on the spot.
Regarding the Instruments of Communion, if they were working the way they should than we would not be in the mess that we find ourselves in today. Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 should have ended this heresy! But TEC especially, and ACoC also (following the lead of TEC) have deliberately and knowingly broken this resolution. I have to wonder, if the Lambeth resolutions are going to be so openly broken without any consequences nor discipline imposed on the offenders than to what purpose does Lambeth serve? Has it really become nothing more than a big “lets get together and only talk about stuff” meeting? If so, than why bother wasting so much time, effort, and money on what has obviously become a useless and meaningless exercise?
Warren good response and technically you are correct. However technicality is part of the reason we are were we are. Given the choice, Spirituality over technicality anyday.
” If all of the instruments are working as intended, unity could be the result”.
Communion in the Anglican sense, without unity is “technically” an oxy-moron. The bodies identified as the “Instruments of Communion” Cannot acheive without being Spiritually unified.
As it was near the beginning, (the Conference of Nicea) IS NOW, but certainly must Not be forever, cause the gates of hell cannot prevail, world without end. Amen.
Until our bishops recognize the necessity of likemindedness (the Spirit of unity) we will just have to roll with the punches.
Stuck (#4), unity (or likemindedness if you will) is a continuum; not a step function. It is also in the eye of the beholder. A group of human beings – even if they hold the title of Archbishop – will never agree on everything; nor should they be expected to. For there to be Christian unity, however, I would argue that there are certain essentials in which there must be agreement (I’ve asked you before what you think those essentials might be and you’ve always dodged the question).
Nicaea and the other ecumenical councils were not convened to achieve unity in a broad sense. The intent was to achieve unity in specific theological matters and to reach consensus on what constituted heresy. It is doubtful that the Anglican instruments of communion could be used for such a purpose today.
As with AMPisAnglican, I too am encouraged to see the letter from Archbishop Orombi and appreciate the clarity with which he states his position and demand – even though I suspect it will fall on deaf ears. Do you have an opinion concerning the letter, or did you just see the post as an opportunity to beat your unity drum?
Off the mark Bro it is not my drum I’m beating –
Spiritual unity is not a “continuum”, nor is it a “step”. It is however a “function” and clearly the will of God and His unfolding Creation through Our Lord and Saviour. The “Unity of the Faith” does not require essentials (in your use of the term). As I have said often and do so once again (to answer your question) it requires the inclusion (factoring) of faith and obedience. I suppose you could call these two “essentials”, I prefer God’s will.
You are aware that the ecumenical councils were full of political wranglings and constant bickering which eventually led to the great schism.
You said, “It is doubtful that the Anglican instruments of communion could be used for such a purpose today. AND THAT Sir, is certainly my point and purpose of my #1. ……..Thank you!
In conclusion ++ Henry points out “Together with Bishop Mouneer, I am equally concerned, as you know, about the shift in the balance of powers among the Instruments of Communion. Note, this is precisely what caused the great schism. In my opinion “Unity is power, Love is Power, anything else is vanity.
Okay, then; how about a suggestion to change your name to Stuck on Unity? If you’ve got to be stuck somewhere, I suppose unity is a better place than Toronto.
Step function.
You’re a real card, Stuck; given that you are one of the most prolific commenters on a blog called Essentials.
Although I hope I’m wrong, you are not providing any reason for me to not conclude that you are a closet universalist. That, although you have your preferences, you believe that all will be saved. That all paths lead to God.
Yes – I’ve probably read a few hundred pages and listened to several hours of lectures on the ecumenical councils in the past few weeks (for the course I’m taking). Although the Great Schism is not wholly unrelated to the ecumenical councils (e.g., the Filioque Clause), your inference that the one is completely contingent on the other is definitely misleading.
Is this a line from a song from the 60s? Flower power and all that jazz?
Dear Warren; Do I keep you up at night?
Being Stuck implies “being fixed in place” in that case I am about as fixed (adj. set firmly in place; stabilized; protected or preserved; steady, firm; not volatile (Chemistry); predetermined; prearranged) that’s regarding me. Having my thoughts fixed or fixated as I am sure you would prefer, meet the same criteria.
Having my avatar (if Cameron can define it his way so can I) the way it is offers a much larger spectrum for those who like yourself concern themselves about such things.
Step function…? hugh???
“You’re a real card, Stuck; given that you are one of the most prolific commenters on a blog called Essentials.”
(Prolific adj. fruitful, productive; abundant, plentiful; reproducing, multiplying; producing fruit) I really was beginning to wonder whether you liked me or not, Thanks pal does my heart good. Now if I could only get you to “understand” some of that fruit.
“A closet Universalist” ……Hugh?
“your inference that the one is completely contingent on the other is definitely misleading.”
If the Church (The Body) had been left alone as it was presented to us than Faith and Unity through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit would have ruled and the HEAD would still be the Head of one church , one faith, UNDIVIDED. (hmmm actually He still is it’s just getting harder to identify)
Unity is power, Love is Power, anything else is vanity.
“Is this a line from a song from the 60s? Flower power and all that jazz?” Nope, just more Biblical paraphrasing
No. I also type fast.
You refuse to define issues such as the infallibility/inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection, justification by faith, the atonement, etc., as essential to Christian belief. The only essential you admit to is unity. Since you claim nothing else to be essential, I don’t know if I can be in Christian unity with you. I really don’t know what you believe. Love and unity are essential fruit for followers of Christ, but, to become a follower of Christ, you must first believe. Not in love and unity, but that Jesus is God and that He was raised from the dead. Such matters are essential to the Christian faith.
Stuck and Warren – No one else need comment…..this is fast becoming the blog of Stuck and warren…… any takers to put a name on it.
Gerry, point taken.
Gerry I have witnessed many subjects on this blog narrow down to debate between two or three people, I suggest you mind your own business, or get involved.
Warren; you said “You refuse to define issues such as the infallibility/inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection, justification by faith, the atonement, etc., as essential to Christian belief.
This statement can only be another of your red herrings however let me put your mind to rest; These issues, as you erroneously put them are indeed part of my Faith. It is the absence of other essentials that has weakened and redefined the “Faith once given”.
“I don’t know if I can be in Christian unity with you. I really don’t know what you believe. Love and unity are essential fruit for followers of Christ,”
Are you a ‘follower of Christ”?
Is “Love and unity” “essential fruit” for you? If so, than your confusion about relationship with me rests with your having to know what I believe and not with your possession of “Essential fruit”. In other words you don’t have a schmick of understanding how unity MUST, through faith, interact with earlier mentioned “essentials”……… “That they might be as one, as we are one”.
I presume that since you agree with Gerry this debate, as with others we have had has come to an abrupt end. That’s OK with me as our “Circle games” are becoming dizzyingly tedious. I am curious why you didn’t address my statement in #6 -”Off the mark Bro it is not my drum I’m beating”-
Stuck in Toronto:
I kind of think that Warren has done a wonderful job of identifying your beliefs in #9 above. And in saying so, I am minding my own business in agreeing. I have had the feeling over many of the entries made on many of the different strings here that you (Stuck in Toronto) just don’t want to n’or can you accept any one else’s point of view (for very long) – even when they are correct.
Now, being one to want to mind my own business, I will not entertain further conversation on this string.
Stuck (#13), I will make a final response. I do not deny the importance of love and unity – I’d be a fool to do so given what the Bible says. To be a follower of Christ, I must believe certain things. It’s not an either/or situation. Love in not the primary requirement to be born again; but the one who has been born again should be loving and strive to be in unity with his brothers and sisters in Christ. If there is no evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, then the legitimacy of the born again experience can be called into question. (I appreciate that the term “born again” is not big in Anglicanism, but Jesus used it.)
I don’t recall you writing anything to call in question the fundamental orthodoxy of your beliefs (and maybe some of my preceding comments were too harsh), but I don’t understand your resistance to identifying things such as the inspiration of Scripture and the Trinity as essentials of the Christian faith.
Perhaps the church should place more emphasis on love and unity; but it does not have to be at the expense of other essentials of the Christian faith. It is not only a failure of love and unity that has broght the Anglican church to where it is today.
Maybe we can carry on this discussion at a future time. I’m still interested to know what you consider essential beliefs in order for someone to be a Christian – even if you don’t use the word essential to describe those beliefs.
In Jesus I thank you and will sheath my sword as well. I look forward to new topics that may bring us back to these “essentials”. That perchance we might discover similarities that could lead us to like-mindedness. If I have led you in any way to think that I believe that “Love and Unity” must be “at the expense of other essentials” I should like to have that pointed out, that I might make very necessary correction. What I believe and have said so often is simply this. These two conjoined entities Must be present for any hope of success of the other essentials of the Christian faith. As I have said more than once on earlier inputs, Faith is incremental. Without the understanding of and complete dedication to these two essences that where most evident in the very early church of the apostles, we cannot hope corporately to reflect to a Spiritually dying world the face of our beloved Saviour.
In the Spirit of gentleness that you so graciously presented I lovingly pray His blessings on you and yours and also pray God speed IAW the Word.
Good night Warren……Oh! -you to Gerry.
I have read the interaction between “Stuck in Toronto” (what a place to be stuck in!!), Warren and Gerry. Reference is made to unity and love and that is good. However, you cannot have unity between apostasy and orthodoxy regardless of how much glue is applied. True love in the present situation requires appropriate discipline that will lead to repentance on the part of the apostates. We do not serve the same Master and I do not think I have to identify the master of the apostates. We all know his cunning ways.
Most of us will face very difficult feelings in our hearts especially when we speak the truth. When we do, we will likely feel that our prayer for God to change the ill-hearts of Homosexual Christian supporters (especially Anglicans) just bounce off the ceiling. Our words will seem empty and useless. We can’t seem to verbalise what is on our hearts. We feel like our words are ineffective and insufficient. So what do we do? We trust God’s promise the Spirit intercedes for us (Rom 8:26,27). We go to God in prayer! Even when we don’t have words to say, we offer our hearts to him, trusting that the Holy Spirit takes those thoughts, emotions, and inarticulate frustrations to God. The Spirit makes our hearts known to God, interceding for us according to God’s will. Even when we don’t have words, the Spirit makes our needs known. What a tremendous reassuring grace! Amen