Sunday, October 03, 2010

Anglican Communion Primates meeting announced

From here:

The next Primates’ Meeting of the Anglican Communion will be held in Ireland between the 25th and 31st January, 2011.

Senior bishops from Churches across the Communion will be invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams to attend the meeting taking place at the Emmaus Retreat & Conference Centre in Dublin, Ireland.

The Primates' Meeting was established in 1978 by Archbishop Donald Coggan (101st Archbishop of Canterbury) as an opportunity for “leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation” and has met regularly since then. Today it has become an important consultative meeting for Primates and Moderators and is recognized as one of the Instruments of Communion.

Recent Primates’ Meetings have been held in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in 2007 and Alexandria, Egypt in 2009.

34 comments:

Observer said...

just like Lambeth 08, Williams has invited Schori and her Canadian counterpart..... just like Lambeth 08, he tries to force the GS to compromise for the sake of institutional unity...... and is willing to see them walk away as long as his revisionist friends, with whom he agrees on presenting issues remember, are still at the table...... an inch at a time..... that is the revisionist strategy

Daniel Weir said...

I find it interesting how someone who declines to use her/his own name also declines to refer to the Presiding Bishop by her full name.

Lapinbizarre said...

And appears to be posting in "concerned" mode at Fr Harris's site, Fr Weir.

[Roger Mortimer, FWIW]

BabyBlue said...

Daniel, as you know we allow and esteem our anons here (and sometimes that's not easy to do). It's a cafe, not a classroom. We don't have a tier of kindness that only extends to folks if we know their name. So let us all be generous with one another when making comments and not expect that just because one doesn't mind making oneself public we should expect everyone else should do the same. There are lots of reasons why people post the way they do, just the same as why people don't generally announce themselves publicly when they walk into a cafe, or even a church for that matter. We welcome anons - we know that God knows who they are. All are welcome - let's keep that spirit alive. :)

bb

Andy said...

My prayers for this gathering would be that in the midst of the leisurely thought, prayer, and deep consultation, that it would be a season for courage and rectitude.

Daniel Weir said...

bb-

I really wasn't objecting to anonymous posting - although I don't like it - but to referring to the PB as "Schori." It seems disrespectful not to refer to her by the name which she uses. Given the nature of Observer's comment, seeing a lack of respect does not seem unreasonable.

Therese said...

Daniel, respect is earned, not given. She has yet to display any reason that anyone at all should respect her. I am ashamed of her, and have left the Episcopal Church in grief and shame because of her and her actions. May God have mercy on her and extend her forgiveness- but she deserves the respect of no one of any character.

Lapinbizarre said...

Bigger - figuratively speaking - fish than "Observer", now follow this convention, Fr Weir.

Anonymous said...

Let's comment about the viability and worth of the upcoming 2011 Primates' meeting.

It may well be the defining moment for western leadership of anything called, on an ongoing basis, "the Anglican Communion".

I cannot foresee substantive allowance of any orthodox doctrinal positions given revisionist accession to power.

The AC has been de facto aplit for a while now.

1/25 - 1/31/2011 ought to be interesting...

Daniel Weir said...

"Respect is earned not given" is, IMV, too often used as an excuse for rude behavior. I disagree with the actions of a number of former members of the Episcopal Church, but I won't refer to Arbp Duncan as Mr. Duncan. Civility has been one of the casualties in public discourse in this country and elsewhere and I will continue to challenge those who I see as acting rudely with this question: how does a show of disrespect serve the common good of the society or the church?

TJ McMahon said...

Daniel,
Referring to the PB of TEC as "Schori" is nowhere near as rude as suing volunteer vestry for their vote on a particular issue. You will also note that TEC, since the deposition of Abp. Duncan, refers to him as Mr. Duncan in their various lawsuits against him, his diocese, his clergy and his parishes. So, perhaps there is a certain amount of "pot calling the kettle black" when TEC clergy who back the PB's politics and heresies complain that people do not show her "respect."
While I agree that the conversation would be more civilized if all were polite, what makes it truly uncivil is the actions of one side- namely the depositions and lawsuits.
TJ (a thinly veiled pseudonym)

Anonymous said...

That the thread's topic is now respect, we may view bb's original article through that lens.

Revionists, most notably those currently in power in the western bit of the AC, have shown absolutely zero respect for orthodox believers, Holy Scripture, 2000 years of the faith once delivered to the saints, the person, work, sacrifice, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension, humanity, divinity, and reality of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Father Almighty, believers around the world, avangelism, the Good News, the constitution and canona of virtually every Christian church, the ecumenical movement, Christians through the centuries, the letter and spirit of the law of Christ...ad infinitum... What haven't revisionists disrespected except the sanctity of individual "freedom"?

As such, since revisionists trample everyone in their path, why must they merit respect? We are called to love our enemies, not respect them, or has respect been redefined a la tolerance?

Since Lambeth respects the intelligence of no one else but its chief resident, there is little to no hope for the 2011 Primates' meeting.

In closing (perhaps substitute respect for humility in the following):

“What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert–himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt – the Divine Reason. . . . The new skeptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. . . . There is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it’s practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. . . . The old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which makes him stop working altogether. . . . We are on the road to producing a race of man too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.”

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy [Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1957], pp. 31-32

--signed,

Unsigned for very good reasons

Anonymous said...

I would think "Mrs. Schori" would be civil enough for folks who are not members of the Church in which she is the Presiding Bishop. But I don't know if any vestry member has ever been sued for a vote he took. I do know that there are lawsuits against vestry members who are alleged to have failed in their fiduciary duties. This happens. It's unfortunate. But it's hardly caused by a lack of manners.

Scout

Anonymous said...

"But I don't know if any vestry member has ever been sued for a vote he took."

Come now - read the filings by TEC/DioVA. They even sued the vestry members who voted not to separate from the Episcopal Church.

Suing the vestries was meant expressly to inflict harm, which in some cases it has.

RalphM

Anonymous said...

I hope the CANA and TEC leaders are more business-like, if not civil, than this discussion, otherwise there won't be a settlement.

Anonymous said...

Another interpretation, Ralph, was that it was intended to remind vestrymen that they have fiduciary obligations. those types of reminders can do a great deal to protect from harm. If vestry members cannot uphold those obligations, resignation is an excellent way out of ambiguity. As a former vestryman, I certainly would have great trepidation about staying on the vestry if I had already made a decision to leave the church. In any event, a commenter opined that he thought those sorts of reminders were rude. I don't see that rudeness has anything to do with it. I do see, however, that using titles appropriately can be interpreted as a sign of respect and neglecting them could be seen as a sign of rudeness.

Scout

Observer said...

Mr Weir, Sir...you didn't mind me referring to the ABC as "Williams"? But your response has taken attention away from my point...which is the inch at a time strategy of revisionists, staying at the table despite 'tearing the fabric of the Communion' - as at Lambeth 08, with the help of the ABC, resulting in the fragmentation of the AC...... as he tries to build a "synthesis" between "the mind of the Communion" and those who reject it.

I understand why the 'inch at a time' strategy is followed.... it is classic 'anarchosyndicalism' - the insider strategy has given a lot of TEC property and wealth to revisionists even as TEC ASA has plummeted to fewer than 1 in 400 Americans on a Sunday and those attending with an average age over 60..... so, the insider strategy makes sense for revisionists as a small group which attracts few (in the US, it got revisionists control of TEC wealth, in the AC it gives a tiny group of revisionists disproportionate influence despite decades of failing to win theological arguments....the alternative, ie TEC leaving the AC with integrity, is independence and obscurity because TEC is a very small group amongst US churches..... I guess Americans are not taken in by Spong and Gene.... what is the ASA in NH - up much since 2003? We are told that progressives are reaching their western contexts....but people in their western contexts seem much more interested in other churches.....

Steven in Falls Church said...

The problem is that the vestry oath puts one in an impossible situation. Here is the oath from the Canons of the Diocese of Virginia:

"I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do yield my hearty assent and approbation to the doctrines, worship and discipline of The Episcopal Church . . . ."

It is impossible to uphold the first part of the oath ("I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation") while at the same time pledging fealty to Mrs. Jefferts Schori ("I do yield my hearty assent and approbation to the doctrines, worship and discipline of The Episcopal Church"), who expressly discounts the first part of the oath. In such an impossible situation, basic rules of textual construction require the more important part of the statement to supersede the lesser, inconsistent part. For my part, I'll venture that the first part of the statement is more important than the second.

BabyBlue said...

Friends, I do encourage you to address other people as they would wish to be addressed. The point of conversation - or at least one point - is that the other person will hear you, not that we send code so that those likeminded will know our own personal views. I learned this in the prolife movement, that if you want to be heard you use the words that your audience or those with whom you disagree use so I used prochoice to describe those with whom I disagree because that was how they chose to identify themselves. When they in turn called my position prolife, then we both knew we were trying to listen to other person. Believe me, that didn't happen very often! But when it did, it also meant we were coming together as people and not as positions.

One of the reasons this is a "cafe" and not a classroom or court room is that it's a place for all kinds of people to come and share thoughts and ideas and dreams with one another, with the hope that we will see each other as people and not just a political position.

So yes, I do encourage us all to call Bishop Schori by her name, Bishop Schori, because that is how she identifies herself, and to call Archbishop Duncan by his name, Archbishop Duncan, because that is how he identifies himself. It does take effort sometimes - I know. It may feel like we're giving up part of our "position" to do so - but the benefits of being heard by each other and not putting up more walls or burning more bridges could make a big difference in ways we can't at this point even imagine.

bb

Daniel Weir said...

bb-

Actually, I think the PB prefers Jefferts Schori,with or without Bishop. It was that that initially concerned me and I was influenced by a suspicion, perhaps or even probably unfounded, that Observer is a man who thinks married women should b known by their husband's name alone.

I think I have diverted conversation from more productive avenues for long enough.

Observer said...

Mr Weir - your suspcion was completely wrong!
As I said, I referred to the ABC as "Williams".... not an insult, quite usual to use surnames in this way.... if someone uses two surnames, I agree we ought to do so.... they can help by adding a hyphen....
Anyway - what I do think is that your PB ought not to be invited....that is consistent with Windsor and will avoid a fiasco like Lambeth 08 when bishops of most Anglicans in the world did not attend because people who have deliberately torn the fabric of the communion were given invitations ..... there comes a time when talking to death issues which we will never resolve is pointless and I thin the GS bishops have been more than patient..... now, the AC can shrink to a tiny, western, declining group without the GS.... or it can affirm "the mind of the Communion" (which happens to be in line with 2000 yrs of the teaching of the church catholic....and we can get on with it.... revisionists free to start their own churches, of course, and see who is interested in talking about ubuntu etc

Anonymous said...

Having stumbled upon an etiquette chatroom by mistake, I'd like to add that I have no idea where the idea that referring to people by their surname is rude. If someone would like to cite to some authority, I should like to see it. If anything, it may signal some familiarity, but I am not certain that familiarity through the press does not count. The practice was common in schools in my youth, and until recently was a custom of respect in certain learned professions.

Pendennis

RMBruton said...

BB,
Do you not think that people holding out any hope for this next, upcoming meeting of the Primates is like Charlie Brown thinking that maybe, just maybe, Lucy will not pull the football away at the last minute? I believe that the proverbial can is once more being kicked down the road.

Daniel Weir said...

If our family were to have a reunion and if the head of the family, my eldest brother, were refused to invite me, I would be rightly upset. It's not his family but our family.

I would feel the same way if the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to invite the PB to the Primates reunion. If others choose to stay away because she will attend, as some did for Lambeth 2008, that is their choice.

However, mindful that associating with us may bring harm to others in the Communion, I would support Fr. Mark Harris's suggestion that we consider withdrawing from the Communion. Whether or not that would improve relations between Anglicans and Muslims in Nigeria and other places is far from certain, but I would be willing to take that step in hopes that it would.

Anonymous said...

Steven, if a vestryman feels he cannot support either part of the oath, he should not take it and should not hold office. If he is in office, he should resign. If he has not yet assumed office, he should decline.

Scout

BabyBlue said...

Question: What happens when things change while a member of the Vestry is in office?

bb

Andy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andy said...

A vestryman's oath is not an oath of abject fealty to the institutional church, nor is it a rubber stamp to the whims of others. It should be clear that if that institution slouches off into apostasy, he/she is oath-bound to stand against said apostasy. Anything less could be tantamount to a type of spiritual "Nuremberg defense".

Anonymous said...

If the apostasy is clear, the vestryman should resign. He/she can do so with as much or as little fanfare as he thinks appropriate. What he cannot do consistent with his oath is selectively observe parts of it, and selectively flouting other parts. We have had a great problem in our Diocese of vestry members making a decision that they should leave a Church, then staying in office for months or years while they plan to herd others with them and/or to take control of property.

Scout

Daniel Weir said...

I agree with Scout about resigning when conscience makes it impossible to stay. I do find it odd that in many cases, people with a very high view of the importance of the Communion have espoused a congregationalist polity.

Anonymous said...

"If the apostasy is clear, the vestryman should resign."

Wow! No defense of the faith once delivered?

Perhaps I misunderstand your intent.

RalphM

Daniel Weir said...

Ralph,

I can't speak for Scout, but I think that when it is clear that the church to which one belongs (local or denominational)has become apostate and there is no real chance of changing that, resigning can be a defense of the faith. It was in such a situation that members of the parish I was serving saw themselves after Bp Robinson's ordination was consented to by the General Convention. They left the parish in what I saw as a defense of the faith as they understood. I did not agree with them, but I respected their decision.

Anonymous said...

Ralph - I think it is understood that I am spotting Steven, Andy, and BB the premise that there was rank apostasy afoot in a parish (or a diocese) that made the vestryman's oath internally inconsistent. Of course, I don't believe that to have been the case in my direct experience as a vestryman of one of the great historic churches of America. But, one really has to resign if one cannot adhere to the oath on a matter of conscience. That doesn't mean you have to leave the church/diocese/parish. It does mean you can't hold office with your fingers crossed. I'm a great advocate of staying on and witnessing for correct doctrine (as one is able to discern that, given our inherent imperfections). But I am a bit surprised to see you advocating that in this context, because I believe you are among those who left. I would have been delighted if you had stayed. And you are most welcome to return. But, to bring it back to the context of the thread, a vestryman or a priest simply cannot defensibly reach a personal decision that the church of which he is a part is apostate and stay more than a second or two beyond reaching that conclusion. Again, to emphasize the problem and its consequent damage, in the Diocese of Virginia there were a large number of priests (some rather prominent) and vestry members who made the determination to leave and then violated their oaths by staying on for considerable periods of time trying to concoct departure stratagems that would gain control of physical properties and assets of the churches. And people are surprised that this leads to litigation? If I did that, I'd expect to get my you know what sued right quick. And whoever sued me would be right to do so.

Scout

Anonymous said...

Scout,
Perhaps our difference centers on whether the church (I mean that parish) was known to the vestryperson to be apostate when he was elected. If that is the case, he should not have accepted office to begin with. Better to shake off the dust an move on.

If, however, the apostacy surfaces at the local, diocesan or national level during the term of service, it is my position that those on vestries have an obligation to fight back. It's a matter to Whom we owe the highest level of allegiance...

RalphM