Thinking Anglicans

Primates Meeting: more commentary 2

The Anglican Communion Institute has published Dublin Post-Mortem. The concluding paragraphs read:

…For all these reasons, the group of Primates who met in Dublin cannot be recognized as acting in accord with the accepted Communion understanding of the Primates’ Meeting as an Instrument of Communion. This Instrument thus joins the others as now being dysfunctional and lacking in communion credibility. The role of the Lambeth Conference as an Instrument of Communion is to “express episcopal collegiality worldwide.” But in 2008, when the bishops of most Anglicans “worldwide” were not present, it could not perform this function. It accomplished little of substance and is now regarded throughout much of the Communion as a symbol of futility. Similarly, the Anglican Consultative Council has been re-structured legally so that it is no longer recognizable as the Instrument defined in the Covenant or in past Anglican documents. The role of the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Instrument of Communion is to function as “a primacy of honor and respect among the college of bishops,” as “a focus and means of unity,” and the one who “gathers” the Lambeth Conference and Primates’ Meetings. Whatever may be said about the cause of the disintegration, it is incontrovertible empirically that Canterbury has been unable to perform this function over the last three years. The Communion thus finds itself with no working Instrument that has been able to perform its necessary function, follow its rules, and garner credible acceptance from the majority of the Communion.

We are left with a grouping—one can no longer say “communion”—of three dozen or so autonomous churches, many of whom are not in communion with others, without any effective Instruments of Communion to bind them together. This is made no less heartbreaking by being the Communion’s obvious trajectory for several years.

But we can only proceed from where we are. The first task for those who share a Communion ecclesiology is to begin to re-constitute working Instruments of Communion. These will necessarily be provisional at first, but if the Communion is to survive they must evolve into Instruments that actually work to unite the member churches of the Communion. If church history, including our own recent experience, teaches anything it is that neither confessions without instruments nor instruments without common faith and order are sufficient to preserve unity. As recently noted by the Secretary General, the vast majority of the Communion continues to share Anglicanism’s historic faith and order notwithstanding its rejection by two provinces. What is needed as a matter of urgency are Instruments that express that common faith. We call on the Primates representing the vast preponderance of Anglicans, together with their colleagues, to take up the charge of seeing to the furtherance of the Communion and we pledge our prayers to that end.

Bishop David Anderson of ACNA and the American Anglican Council in his latest weekly email quoted various other commentators and then wrote this:

…For my own opinion on the leadership of the Anglican Communion I would refer you to last week’s AAC Weekly Update, and my lead comments.

And here is what he had written (before the Dublin meeting took place):

Many of the primates have made their reasons for being absent very clear in public and private correspondence to Dr. Williams, who is the convener. However, the Anglican Communion Office, headed by Canon Kenneth Kearon, has concocted reasons for some of them that are simply disingenuous. Most of the primates have made it clear to Dr. Williams why they are absent and why they are frustrated and disappointed in his leadership. With this fact in mind, there is a question that begs to be asked; “Is Dr. Williams competent to lead the Communion?” You would be surprised if you polled liberal revisionists and orthodox conservatives to find that many on both sides would answer NO. It is time to acknowledge before the world that the emperor has no clothes, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has no competency to lead the Communion.

We do understand the formal process that led to the royal appointment/directive of Dr. Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury, but in practical, realpolitik terms, Williams was chosen by Prime Minister Tony Blair to assist in Blair’s task of blending church and state agendas to the gay agenda. One should be able to ask why in the world the entire Anglican Communion should be subject to a manipulative prelate chosen by a politician elected by a secular government. If there is no way to replace a failed archbishop and restart with an actually spiritual (in a historical and understandable sense) archbishop, then those who can see failure and call it for what it is need to look elsewhere for leadership.

The Anglican Communion is a wonderful global family that has some real dysfunction, and as is often the case, the heart of the dysfunction sits in the center. The heart of the dysfunction is not TEC, nor Bishop V. Gene Robinson, nor Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori. That these have perpetrated grossly unbiblical misconduct and deserve to be severely punished is clear enough, but to posit the blame on all of them gives them entirely too much credit and feeds their sense of importance. The blame properly falls on the spiritual father who should have disciplined the miscreants and is now unable to act for the well being of both the miscreants and the rest of the family. To be effective, discipline needs to be clear, redemptive in nature, and prompt – all of which Dr. Williams is unwilling and unable to fulfill.

In a more perfect world we could announce, “NEXT!” and pick a new one. As it is, the process will be unsure, open to failure, possessing unforeseen collateral effect, and take much more time. Will the Anglican Communion survive? Possibly, but most likely not in the form we have known. Perhaps there will be a healing of the orthodox Global South stress fracture, and a new way forward will be found. Fortunately, God is still sovereign, and the church still belongs to him, and in time he will set right what man has over turned…

40 comments

  • Martin Reynolds says:

    So sad to read the ACI essay. It is so poor, one wonders where all the care and diligence that once characterised their work has gone. I may not have agreed with what they wrote in the past but it usually deserved respect – this is just tosh, although it follows a predictable decline.

    I don’t even think it deserves further engagement.

  • The five bad writers with a website need to be called on their BS. The centralized Anglican Communion they describe, complete with a Lambeth Vatican and a Primatial Curia is a fabrication – or, in plainer English, a lie. This misleading meme is to 21st century Anglicanism what the forged decretals and the mythological donation of Constantine were to the Western Church through the Middle Ages.

  • Bill Moorhead says:

    To the Anglican Communion Institute: Your mom called. It’s time for you to come home now.

  • Randal Oulton says:

    >> As recently noted by the Secretary General, the vast majority of the Communion continues to share Anglicanism’s historic faith and order notwithstanding its rejection by two provinces.

    Two provinces. I reckon that’s Canada and America. The hope of the future for all mankind for the past 500 years. Which would be why they all are beating down the doors to get in.

    We are the future, not the past.

  • Randal Oulton says:

    David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK on sexual equality:

    “Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things. Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.”

    Note: to belong here is to believe these things.

  • Perry Butler says:

    I am sure that if the GAFCON Primates do move to a formalised split from canterbury, they will find division within their own provinces..there will be fragmentation, not two clear cut communions.
    Andersons stuff about +Rowans appointment and Blairs realpolik is simply crackers.

  • Martin Reynolds says:

    No Malcolm, some of their work is very well written.

    Some indeed has been first class, in the early days their work was challenging and well prepared – even more recently there was a first class analysis by Ephraim Radner I remember, and the most recent articles on the Anglican Communion by Turner were for a large part well drawn and insightful.

    But gradually they started to build on shaky ground of their own making – taking their own opinions as fact. One could see the trajectory as they became more involved in the politics and replaced sound thinking with polemic. The Internet age demanding instant responses did not help. A visceral streak opened up – it was almost as if some old personal scores had surfaced ….

    Then, to become so wedded to their own particular vision of “conciliarity” and the progression of rule by Primates as if all depended on this particular development showed some serious lack of judgment. In their narrow focus they seem to have lost their way. Surely as we all measure and assess the developments within our common life some ideas will move forward, others backwards? But what seems a retreat can in fact become the preparation for some leap forward.

    This present development within our family of churches is a living experiment and it affects the lives of millions of people, at a time of flux such as we are experiencing one looks for those who have the long view – the ACI/Fulcrum axis however have become amongst the most shrill – the hottest heads, ever more shrill as they perceive that they are no longer being listened to by those at the centre of affairs.

    Regrettably these men have made many of the bullets that encourage todays civil war.

    It is so sad … I feel sorry for these lads.

  • JCF says:

    “Williams was chosen by Prime Minister Tony Blair to assist in Blair’s task of blending church and state agendas to the gay agenda”

    Can anyone—w/o an “agenda” divorced from reality—SRSLY believe this?! [Yeah, Blair was so slavishly pro “gay agenda”, he Poped! :-X]

    I’m embarrassed to *read* it, nevermind who wrote it…

  • This is the same David Anderson who, this time last year, was seeking to persuade the CofE General Synod that it should in some sense “recognise” ACNA.

  • Susannah Clark says:

    There is actually very little wrong with having a “grouping of thirty or so autonomous” churches…

    …and in the second article… “gay agenda”…?

    Is there a “heterosexual agenda”?

    There are just people, trying to live their lives, love their partners, serve their communities.

    There is, however, discrimination and marginalisation of LGBT men and women, and the resulting diminution of lives, and lost flourishing, and loss of gifts to the Church.

    As for Rowan Williams not being “spiritual”… I’m left gasping at such judgment… and I remain deeply impressed by Rowan’s spirituality and insights on prayer, especially in the tradition of the Spanish 16th Century mystics.

    The man is awesomely spiritual.

    Leadership, fine, debate all you like… but how *dare* someone impugn a decent Christian’s spirituality like that?

  • It is good to see the ACI stuff aired out here. Their whole argument is built on the notion of “if they are right about the Primates being a council”. Sadly that if is now and always has been wrong. The ACI and its predecessor SEAD intellectually invented the so called instruments and sold them to various parties in the communion. Each of the so called instruments bought in thinking they would be the primary instrument.

    The ACI was rooting for that primacy to be among the Primates because their own bully position depended on the notion that a numerical majority of people in the pews gave added gravitas to the position of their leaders. That too is wrong. Indeed The Episcopal Church knew it could not even form unless it was based in One Diocese, One Vote because numerically smaller colonies were not going to subordinate themselves to larger ones. The Communion has worked the same way, One Province, One Vote.

    So now the ACI is forced to explain how their ideas have been fractured by the reality of four instruments fighting for power that never really existed. We would all have been better off had the Virginia Report and its successors simply been shredded.

    The five guys with the website and their followers have lost at every turn, you can read that in this latest essay. No one is doing what they told them to do! So now all they have left is spoiled muck.

  • JPM says:

    This is also the same David Anderson who said, on CNN, that he was in the Episcopal Church at that time because “I like a good fight.”

  • Richard Ashby says:

    ‘That these have perpetrated grossly unbiblical misconduct and deserve to be severely punished is clear enough, but to posit the blame on all of them gives them entirely too much credit and feeds their sense of importance. The blame properly falls on the spiritual father who should have disciplined the miscreants and is now unable to act for the well being of both the miscreants and the rest of the family’.

    There is something very odd about ‘Bishop’ David’s language. The language of an old fashioned headmaster of a ‘Public School’ (for USA readers actually a private school). ‘Deserve to be severely punished’. Out with the slipper, lower your trousers, Bishop Katherine, six of the best. As for you, Bishop Rowan, we made you Head Boy and you have badly let the school down. We shall have to write to your parents and expell you before you unmentionable crimes pollute the whole school.

    Who do these people think they are? What sort of language do they think that are using? What impact do they think this language has on those who are outside their little coterie? What world do they live in with their talk of miscreants and punishment. Very peculiar.

  • Lapinbizarre says:

    “….delight to bark and bite, it is their nature to.”

  • EmilyH says:

    As to whom or what to put your chips on. Pt. 1 Please recall Ephraim Radner’s Stand Firm post on Lambeth 2008 06-06-2007 at 05:16 AM The discussion was whether Lambeth was a council of the church..or whether it should be. Prior to the conference, Radner said: “As far as I can see, Matt’s reaction is on the level of “I don’t want Lambeth to be read in terms analagous to Nicea or Constantinople—i.e. as a council of the Church—and therefore I shall insist that it isn’t.” My point is that it could be seen as such, in the light of the Holy Spirit’s calling and promise. It really is a question of what one wants. And why would one wish it were otherwise, except that one simply doesn’t want to be seen with the likes of TEC bishops? What I don’t get is why an overwhelming majority of traditional bishops from around the world should worry about being at a meeting of prayer and counsel, at which a puny handful of marginal dissidents from some confused and tiny Western churches is also present? Let Lambeth 2008 finish what Lambeth 1998 began. Arguments to the effect of ‘but TEC hasn’t listened and cannot be trusted’ are all true! I have made them ad nauseum along with the rest of everyone on this blog. But so what? Nigeria, Uganda, and so on all have the numbers on their side by a long shot. Let us then see the Spirit uphold their witness. Or do we doubt that too?” His opinion after was greatly different. (See Pt 2)

  • Nat says:

    “Gay agenda”?

    Isn’t that filed on the same shelf as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? The shelf marked “Doesn’t Exist”?

  • Charlotte says:

    Thanks to Randal Oulton for introducing David Cameron’s “multiculturalism has failed” speech to this discussion.

    The Tory Prime Minister argues strongly that his government should take an active interest in the preservation of what he terms liberal Western values. He insists that new immigrants, whatever their faith, be prepared to uphold them. These values include “equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.”

    This is not at all the same as the “persecuted Christian” motif Lord Carey has introduced to the political discussion in Britain. It’s something quite different, which moreover fits poorly into the US liberal/conservative dichotomy. The IRD/Stand Firm axis must be having real trouble understanding where it’s coming from. It does seem as though the strain of postcolonial guilt on which so much of the “Global South” rhetoric depended is being decisively rejected by the coalition government. No tiptoing around Nigeria or Uganda because they were once British colonies.

    I do think this political shift has enabled a new settlement in the Anglican Communion, one which will leave Gafcon on the outside unless its members agree to come back to the table.

  • “the group of Primates who met in Dublin cannot be recognized as acting in accord with the accepted Communion understanding of the Primates’ Meeting as an Instrument of Communion. This Instrument thus joins the others as now being dysfunctional and lacking in communion credibility” – A.C.I. Statement on P’s Meeting –

    As Malcolm has already suggested, the sheer improbabililty of A.C.I.’s understanding of the real situation within the Anglican Communion at large renders their opinion on this, and other, subjects of liberality within the Communion, null and void. Really, just so much Taurean manure.

  • Martin, in gvstibvs, non est dispvtandem, I guess. But even back in the old days when ACI articles were thoughtful, academically credible and well reasoned, they were never well written. Tye prose style has been consistently overwrought and vaguely archaic.

  • Martin Reynolds says:

    Yes, that was true, Malcolm ….. our tastes are not too different …. I have myself constantly complained about their overblown style ….

    So you are correct.

  • Martin Reynolds says:

    And apart from your own stuff Malcolm, also well worth reading is that other ACI watcher who also comments above.

    There are two good pieces at Michael Russell’s blog
    http://eudaimonia.blogs.com/anglican_minimalist/2011/01/anglican-communion-if-stitute.html
    http://eudaimonia.blogs.com/anglican_minimalist/2011/01/aci-d-ic-blast-from-the-cold-north.html
    … both worth a read

  • Richard Grand says:

    Two things: 1. Why is David Anderson on mission to get rid of Rowan Williams when he has already left the Anglican Communion anyway? What does he care unless he thinks that someone more acceptable to him would recognize ACNA? 2. As a response to EmilyH: It is an important principle in the Communion that all have equal votes. The idea that power and influence is predicated on numbers (“They have numbers on their side”) is unscriptural and unfair. Not only do numbers say very little (how are they measured and what defines membership?) but they can be used as weapons. Have you never heard of the remnant? The little flock? The mustard seed? If numbers rule, they can also be maniplated or just wrong. The marginalized toward whom Christ’s ministry was directed had no numbers. The disciples had no numbers. But Pilate and the Chief Priest did.

  • Derek Gagne says:

    It’s interesting that those who are continually telling us what a disaster the Communion is (and usually +Rowan Williams) are also those who have a vested interest in its demise. They tell us it’s over because they want it to be. These are often people who have already sold their souls to the Gafcon or ACNA people anyway, or vice versa. They think that saying it is so makes it so.

  • Cynthia Gilliatt says:

    If you google “gay agenda,” you will find various versions, some of which are the product of the paranoid fears of the religious right, and many of which are quite funny satires on the same.

  • EmilyH says:

    For Mr. Grand…I would agree with you regarding representation. One of the great concerns I have always had is the potential for tyranny of the majority. That cuts either way, by the right or the left. The words I quoted were +Radner’s not my own. It was he who suggested re: Lambeth that the GS show up and vote as it had the numbers..the implication being the work of the Spirit was the work of the majority. Simon has not yet posted Part 2, in it, I tried to illustrate that the right has tried to capture each of the potential vehicles of authority..instruments of communion. With each failure it has then downgraded them as authoritative. The last was ++Williams and it is he who is now taking a beating.

  • “The marginalized toward whom Christ’s ministry was directed had no numbers. The disciples had no numbers. But Pilate and the Chief Priest did”.

    – Posted by: Richard Grand on Monday –

    What a beautifully expressed couple of sentences in the English language that actually tells us ‘how it is’ with the real focus of the Gospel.

    I still remember the opposite focus of the old *Global South* web-site – upon which I was barred from commenting after the drift of my opposition to its ingrained denigration of TEC’s (and the Anglican Church of Canada’s) life-giving outreach to the marginalised LGBT community in their respective areas of Anglican ‘jurisdiction’.

    It seemed to me at the time that the newly-emergent thrust of GAFCON & the G.S. Provinces was to ‘purify’ the Communion by drawing attention to its own numerical strength as defenders of a basic Victorian Puritanism within their Third World territories of Anglican influence. Not only this, they wanted to export that Victorian muscular Christianity to the rest of us in the Western World. They implied that sheer numbers were a sufficient guarantee of theological orthodoxy within the Communion. They gave the word ‘orthodox’ a spuriously novel validity that simply did not cohere with what the freedom of Christ in the Gospel was meant to proclaim in the arena of today’s world.

    ACI and ACNA are consumed with the numerological possibility of world domination by their own form of *Christianity* ‘by the Book’ – that precludes any new hermeneutical insights being brought into the picture of what is the gift of our Anglican *Unity in Diversity* ethic in a world that has evolved from the theological ‘certainties’ of the Victorian era of missionary activity.

    The continuing Mission of the Church is to: ‘Set the captive free, give sight to the blind”, and to free the Church from its old institutional hypocrisy about gender and sexuality.

    And, as for ‘Bishop’ Anderson, as a puppet of the Global South contingent, he ‘hath no juridiction’ within the Anglican Communion. Nor will he have if we want to bring the Anglican Communion Provinces up to date in their mission to ALL humanity.

  • EmilyH’s part 2 was posted, but on another thread. I am copying it below.

    EmilyH wrote:

    Pt. 2 from above…After Lambeth 2008 failed to do what Radner+ wanted, he did not seem to give it the credibility he had forecast. The same may be the case for the Primates Meeting. If the Meeting does what is desired, Dromantine and Dar-es-Salaam, then it is authoritative, if it doesn’t, then it isn’t. Again, if ++Rowan Williams does what is wanted, he is authoritative, if not, he isn’t. Terry Holmes in What is Anglicanism wrote: “Clarity of authority should not be expected–in fact , it should be suspect–when we are attempting to make clear the infinite mind of God for the finite minds of humankind. When Anglicanism is true to its concept of authority, this apparent hesitance to say ‘Thus saith the Lord!’—only to have to spend the next hundred years subtlely qualifying ‘what the Lord said’ is not a sign of weakness, but evidence of strength and wisdom” I think I agree but might add an evidence too of humility.

  • There are just people, trying to live their lives, love their partners, serve their communities.¨ SC

    Yup, what extravagant demands of ¨hello/abre su ojos/nice to see ya¨ we make upon the most holy, the self-proclaimed Godly, the Squeamish, the genuinely mean, the demonizing/the hysterical deniers/revisers of the Holocaust and the twisters of everyday TRUTH (which are often bold faced lies)–we, the LGBTI people near you are your families/friends/coworkers and ¨peace be with/next to you¨ pew sitters–not to worry, if we ¨had¨ something contagious you would have gotten IT already, already…please note we certainly didn´t ¨catch heterosexuality from YOU even though you seem to think it´s desireable in Church/beyond. Pray for the persecuted, the tormented, the marginalized, murdered…please pray for Anglican David Kato and the floundering of wisdom and lack of mercy at the Church of Uganda.

  • Derek Gagne says:

    “the implication being the work of the Spirit was the work of the majority”. If one applies this thinking to the Church, there was a time when the majority of Christians believed Arius.

  • Randal Oulton says:

    >> Williams was chosen by Prime Minister Tony Blair to assist in Blair’s task of blending church and state agendas to the gay agenda.

    This man is absolutely blinded with hatred for LGBT people. He think everything centres around that which he hates. He’ll be blaming them next for the new cardboard milk cartons ASDA has introduced.

  • john says:

    Agree entirely with Richard Ashby. The sentiments are so stupid, so offensive and so adrift from any sort of reality, moral or factual. Of course it’s good if these people look absurd.

    More broadly, I can’t quite see how if the outcome is recognition of provincial autonomy the hand of the centre (Canterbury, RW) is strengthened. So I agree with those who think the outcome is benign. As for the Covenant, its teeth seem to being progressively drawn. In the end it boils down to: there is a group of people who want to get on – sort of – with all the mess that involves and there are those that don’t. Twas ever thus.

  • Lapinbizarre says:

    “If the Meeting does what is desired, Dromantine and Dar-es-Salaam, then it is authoritative, if it doesn’t, then it isn’t.” Bull’s eye, Emily!

  • EmilyH says:

    Again for Mr. Grand on why David Anderson is so concerned with Canterbury…. David Anderson runs the American Anglican Council (AAC not to be confused with Anglican Church of Canada) Its purpose is argue the position of the “orthodox” and influence decision makers. Anderson was present and at work, for example, at Dromantine and Dar-es-Salaam. It is also a principle funding organization for such activities. Anderson got his start at St. James Newport, CA, Howard Ahmanson’s parish…Ahmanson being a principle funder of the “orthodox” social agenda. Anderson has now been appointed a bishop (I believe Kenyan?) and is a priciple with Martyn Minns (Nigeria) in CANA, previously a Nigerian ministry and now “North American” The ACA, unlike a diocese or church such as the Reformed Episcopal Church) is also a full member of ACNA which gives Anderson full voice and vote at its highest level. What ACNA lacks is credibility. What it absolutely wants is acceptance in the Anglican Communion, and, for some of its members, Anglican means Canterbury approval. It now seems clear that ++Rowan is not going to be the instrument of that approval, therefore, it is time to replace ++Rowan with a “Canterbury” who will.

    I realize that I mistyped Radner+ with +Radner in one of my posts. Radner+ is a principle member of the ACI and one of its most active contributors. He was previously in Colorado (ACI then funded through Don Armstrong+ who pleaded no contest to fraud and theft charges.) Radner is now teaching in Canada.

  • EmilyH says:

    If, I am inaccurate on the precise charges, I will be happy to stand corrected by Fr. Armstrong. I am going on memory here.

  • Interestingly, in the old ‘Global South’ website days, when the ACI fellows had some serious input into the emerging pre-GAFCON, pre ACNA, agenda; it seemed that Dr. Radner was one of the saner voices of the G.S. contingency.

    However, since the ABC has not proceeded to act according to what his American advisors at ACI (with some input from English Bishops like Nazir-Ali and + Winchester) were wanting of him; Radner, and the other 3 theologians on the board of ACI have proceeded to denigrate ++ Canterbury – after his decision not to outlaw TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada from the Primates’ Table at Dublin.

    WE must never underestimate the way in which the Holy Spirit might yet be seen to be at work in the Communion – sifting and re-aligning strands of connective tissues within the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury still has some residual respect among his peers – even though that respect has been diminished among the dissenters within the Communion, who would like him to use his office (when they allow that it still has some authority within the Communion) to ‘pull into line’ those of the Provinces that seek to actively pursue the cause of the Gospel in situ, while maintaining the ‘fellowship of the Holy Spirit in the bonds of peace’ with the other Provinces of our Communion.

    Whether ++ Rowan’s projected visit to those of the Global South Provinces that elected to spurn his invitation to the Dublin pow-wow will do anything to encourage GS Leaders to remain in communion with the rest of us, or not; they cannot say he has not bent over backwards to keep them in The Family Circle. We must never under-estimate Rowan’s deep spirituality, which will motivate him to continue to leave the gate open to the puritans for reconciliation with the more adventurous among us.

    What would not be good is for any among the Communion Partners to think that this forthcoming visit to the G.S. Provinces is in any way a sell-out of the Anglican genius for compromise. Rather, it shows a determination to do everything possible to restore the koinonia that St.Paul advocated for the Church in his own day and age.

    “How great and good a thing it is brethren (and sistren) to dwell together in unity!”

  • Lapinbizarre says:

    Based on the relative clarity of the prose, I rather doubt that “Post-mortem” is primarily the work of Dr Radner.

  • EmilyH says:

    The following is taken from the last bits of Philip Turner’s most recent contribution to the discussion….Again, they didn’t do what we wanted them to….. and the special bits about the deafening ears of the rich who will no longer be dining with the poor is really over the top.

    “The Primates who stayed away from Dublin did not do so because they had left the family. They did so because part of the family will not hear what they have to say, and the only way they have left to protest is to refuse to attend this particular meal. Their prayer is that the family will soon again dine together and share one cup. They seem to understand better than those who met in Dublin just how terrible this division is.
    My guess also is that they understand better than those who were there in Dublin how much all suffer from this terrible divide. The absentees will lose much needed support from the rich and the rich will deafen themselves to the witness of the poor who used to sit with them at table. What a terrible thing!”
    February 09 2011 04:02 pm http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2011/02/its-time-to-get-real/

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    “They did so because part of the family will not hear what they have to say, and the only way they have left to protest is to refuse to attend this particular meal.”

    Oh, we have listened…but we simply don’t agree. When these people pray, do they always expect the answer to be “yes”?

  • “They seem to understand better than those who met in Dublin just how terrible this division is.
    My guess also is that they understand better than those who were there in Dublin how much all suffer from this terrible divide.”

    Of course ‘They’ understand better than the Primates who actually deigned to attend the recent Primates Conference in Dublin. ‘They’ remain the primary agents of schism within the Anglican Communion. There sure do understand! But it hasn’t made them repent of their homophobia and misogyny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *