I think this is a very important review. With each completed submission to the Panel of Reference, the dissenters in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have been denied any alternate structure, independent of the existing province, through which to maintain communion with Canterbury. Perhaps this is why Archbishop Akinola was so determined to establishment of CANA as an episcopal jurisdiction under Bishop Minns. The official processes of the Windsor Process have denied a model, a process, or any validation of such an alternate structure. What the Windsor Process will not provide Nigeria will simply create on its own.

Stand Firm is reporting that the meeting adjourned after 6 hours.

Marshall:

Thankyou for stating the obvious--something that must sometimes be done on this particular board.

Steven

One might also say that the Panel of Reference has consistently refused to let the crybabies have their own way.

Either one believes in episcopal government or one doesn't. Apparently the neo-traditionalists don't. Their idea of episcopal governance is that one should be governed by bishops unless you happen to disagree, in which case you should be governed by whatever bishop suits your fancy this week, the Holy Spirit be damned.

Various national churches have come up with models of alternate episcopal oversight, from the "flying bishops" in the UK to the formal DEPO process in the US to the less formal process effectively applied in Canada in the one case where it has come up.

Now, for all its faults, I gather "flying bishops" worked in England. But what the neo-traditionalists refuse to acknowledge is that the process did not allow dissenting parishes to say "eff you" to their current bishop and diocese. It allowed the national Church, in consultation with the bishop, the diocese and the dissenters, to chose a bishop who exercises episcopal oversight based on the assent and delegation of the diocesan.

In the Canadian and American cases (Fort Worth apart) we have a situation where the dissenters flat out refused to have anything to do with the diocese or bishop, refused to permit the diocese or bishop any role in selecting the person to exercise alternate episcopal oversight, demanded that the church cast aside the principles of episcopal government to suit them.

Then, they hypocritically held up their stubborn intransigence as virtue.

Ironically, in the Florida case, their objection to the diocesan bishop was not his position on the Robinson consecration (he had withheld his assent) nor his position on same sex blessings (he forbids them in his diocese). Their objection to the diocesan was that he would not wilfully and arrogantly initiate a schism in the Episcopal Church.

Of all the damnably stupid ideas the Communion has floated in their efforts at appeasing the power mad prelate in Abuja, the Panel of Reference is the only one that hasn't turned into a complete and utter cluster.

"the dissenters in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have been denied any alternate structure, independent of the existing province, through which to maintain communion with Canterbury."

As they should. The Panel of Reference wasn't established to accomplish the independent province idea. It was established to provide a buffer and a neutral third party in an attempt to *avoid* the schism that an independent province would represent. To the extent that conservatives have subverted the review by insisting on impossible demands such as their own province or diocese or sect, they are responsible for the result.

Fr Marshall is just telling it as it is.

There is no side here.

From the Akinola perspective the Windsor Report and all that has followed has failed to meet his agenda and he has now acted in a perfectly consistent way to suit his plans.

Remember, it was Akinola who departed from London in a fit of pique immediately after the launch of the Windsor Report. He has never baulked at the prospect of increasing the difficulties for the Windsor Process by doing such things as supporting the draconian Nigerian legislation or placing further obstacles by creating “realties on the ground”.

He perceives himself as someone to be satisfied not to be an appeaser.

The only point where I might differ from Fr Marshall is on the question of influence of others. I am not by nature a “conspiracy” man, but I believe there are forces at work here that may not always be apparent.

By way of an aside, Fr Marshall has made some interesting comments on the Covenant as a response to the Study Guide that repay thoughtful reading. Follow the link from his name to his blog.

"The only point where I might differ from Fr Marshall is on the question of influence of others. I am not by nature a “conspiracy” man, but I believe there are forces at work here that may not always be apparent."

See Jim Naughton's "Follow the Money" reports on IRD and other entities tangled in all this.

Martin Reynolds --

FWIW, I agree with ++Abuja that TWR is fatally flawed (although we may disagree about where & how)

The Panel of Reference has stumbled not infrequently, but, like TWR, has tried to stick to the brief of trying to hold things together (perhaps long after the split has actually occurred)

& I agree that Marshall Scott is a very insightful person whose posts are always worthy of prayerful consideration

To all those here convinced that the split is a big "conspiracy" and/or that the conservatives have no right to cry foul at the Panel of References' lack of support for them, might I remind you that there are real people involved in this farce. Our local Episcopal church was built using a large donation from a man now in his eighties, but he no longer worships there. The new priest doesn't believe in the principles of the faith he was taught:Christ alone as way to the Father, inerrancy of scripture, Christ literally rising from the dead. The new priest is very liberal and would get a warm welcome at this site, and perhaps is here, I don't know. I know you're all very "people can leave, but not their property" But can you really say that it's this gentleman, not TEC who's left???
He once said it was like walking into church and discovering it was a mosque. Perhaps he should have said Hindu shrine as I understand there's a CofE priest who's both. As the gentleman doesn't believe in either women's ordination, or homosexual clergy, Schori doesn't seem the rightful leader of the church to him, votes or not. To him the Archbishop is a "muslim" but as he's probably older than most people here I daresay again, who's faith has changed and how can your Panel of Reference help him and others like him if you really are sure that there is a place for conservatives in TEC? Doesn't seem like the PofR can/will do anything for them, so what's the point?

Some here will scoff, dismiss us both as fools, condemn him as a hatemonger, but who changed, and why should the "Muslim/hindu" keep the church? If you want to keep property so badly, there's an Episcopal cathedral for sale if you want it.

NonAnglican,

I assume your new priest was chosen by the appropriate bodies and therefore now represents what your church has discerned as appropriate.

I have recently made a gift to a person who has used it in a way I had not intended. Yes, I feel aggrieved, but at the same time - a gift is a gift and carries no strings. Anything else would be an attempt to buy someone's behaviour/loyalty.

Nonanglican - I am quite happy for TEC to keep all the property and cash it has inherited from people who would not recognise the current TEC leadership as the intended recipients of their ind gifts.

It is not a very liberal attitude to fight to keep the property etc but never mind. Money will run out quickly enough given shrinking, ageing, already small congregations in TEC (on average) - TEC needs the money more than those who want to get away from the current TEC leadership....let them have it (decline is expensive)

It is hard for some churches to leave property which they themselves have largely paid for....but even that is worth leaving if it means getting away from the false teaching and horrible distraction we have in the AC currently.

My hope is that TEC uses its cash to form a TEC Global after Sept 30th. Liberals from all over the AC should be free to join - taking their property if they want. They can then be Inclusive as they shrink together and the AC can get on with its mission without being hijacked by a particular rights-based agenda any longer.

Non-Anglican
A -perhaps unnecessary - seconding of Erika Baker's comment - a gift is indeed a gift- the old gentlemen presumably took advantage of tax laws and declared his gift as precisely that - possibly with a letter to the effect that nothing was "traded" for the donation - I also realize "old gentlemen" become rather settled in their ways but perhaps growth in "his" church was an opportunity for him to grow along with it into the "new" world he finds himself in - and which is not as bad as he may imagine-

"Christ alone as way to the Father, inerrancy of scripture, Christ literally rising from the dead."

The first part is incredibly nuanced, but is often used to mean "if you are not a publically declared Christian, you are going to Hell." Regardless of this man's good character, might he be using it with this meaning? I believe it, but that doesn't mean I think Ghandi is going to rot in Hell. I have only ever heard the second phrase used by fundamentalists. It is not even defensible, since large swaths of Scripture are patently errant. This doesn't mean Scripture is unTrue. As for the final point, he would get great opposition form me. 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 is crucial. I'd go so far as to say that those who do not believe it simply don't get it.

"understand there's a CofE priest who's both." Presumably you mean Christian and Hindu. I find that hard to believe, but if true it is surely an issue to be brought to the bishop. I can't imagine how anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty could begin to reconcile those two very different religious views. Sorry, but I'd have to ask you to prove such a person exists.

A gift is a gift, and a donation does not give the right to see something remain as you want it when it is occupied by ministry and congregation. The principle was established in the UK after the Lady Hewley case that congregations can change their beliefs and outlooks and keep trusts and moneys founded by those of a different theological outlook, in this case a continuous period of 25 years. The Episcopal priest will be within the broad range of TEC as it is.

It is a slur to say these people are Hindus or Muslims when almost all of them derive their principal spiritual path through Christian liturgies and do not subscribe to polytheism or the Shahadah.

You are referring to Rev. David Anandas Hart. Given his radical views prioer to going to India, his added attachment to some Hindu practices must mean that he is more theistic than he was, or that he approaches both in a Western non-realist fashion, and he entered into the pictoral world of the spirituality of the community he was with.

The new priest doesn't believe in the principles of the faith he was taught: ... inerrancy of scripture ..."

Scriptural inerrancy, like other aspects of Christian fundamentalism, is an invention of the early part of the 20th century. It posits that the Bible is inerrant in all aspects, including history and descriptions of the natural world. It is the theological equivalent of believing in a flat earth. It has never been an element of Anglican biblical scholarship.

For a detailed study of this and other aspects of this quite recent innovation, see Karen Armstrong's excellent history of Jewish, Islamic, and Christian fundamentalism, "The Battle for God." [I think I have that title right.]

Cynthia
Yes, you have the title right and the book is excellent! It should be compulsory reading.

_intellectual honesty could begin to reconcile those two very different religious views. Sorry, but I'd have to ask you to prove such a person exists._ Ford Elms

He does exist, and he does have intellectual honesty - and he told everyone. The Modern Churchpeople's Union carried the story.

My study door has the Hindu 3-0 symbol on it with Ganesha inside, I ahve a Shiva and a Baby Krishna. They are understandings of divinity, about creation, sustainting, destruction and recreation, removing objects, representing divinity and playfulness - ordinary growing up humanity. They are models and metaphors, just like those from other faiths. I also have a squeaky Tony Blair and a squeaky Gordon Brown meant for throwing to dogs.

Sorry to be so late responding, but I have decided, obviously unsuccessfully at this juncture, not to frequent this space, it's too damaging to my soul. I feel the need to make some final repsonses, however, and this is one. I'm sorry, Pluralist, but I don't understand reconciling the worldviews of two such radically different faiths. Hindu understandings of Incarnation, sin, purity, are all quite different from those of Christians, and this is not to mention such things as Resurrection and Sacrament. I have great respect for Hinduism, don't get me wrong. I am uncomfortable referring to another religions deities are mere "models" as well. I doubt any believer of any faith would consider their God(s) to be models of something else. I just don't see reconciling two very different and often mutually contradictory belief systems. Why not just pick one or the other?