Is Radner out-thinking himself?

"The key now is to work with the Communion in as focused and effective a way possible. In this case, 'the Communion' has offered a way, and they have done so in as clear and unified a fashion possible. All Primates agreed to the Communiqué, both African, Western, Northern and Southern. They may in fact go home to play another tune – we know that this happens all the time with meetings. Nonetheless, the agreement stands, and it represents in fact a rather surprising unanimity on matters concrete and disciplinary within this varied gathering of churches. The agreement stands, and it is up to the Primates to hold accountable their colleagues. It is also up to people like us, simple laborers in the vineyard, to hold up to our leaders the shape of that calling they themselves have voiced, and to do what we can to further its accomplishment."

I find these sentences puzzling for three reasons:

1) It appears to assume the Primates speak for the Communion. Where is the ACC in all of this? Again, we see the Primates over-invested with power they have assumed for themselves -- not power they have been granted by the provinces or all the Instruments of Unity at very least. (But then, that would mean waiting at least until Lambeth, right? But the Primates seem in such a terrible hurry.)

2) Agreeing to the Communique does not seem to me to mean to insisting that its *recommendations* be followed. But +Katharine Jefferts Schori has no power to impose the recommendations on the Episcopal Church. Therefore, holding her "accountable" for the Episcopal Church's actions is to risk scapegoating her. Our bishops have made it clear *unanimously* that they are prepared to take responsibility for their statement -- take that responsibility up directly with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates' Steering Committee at their earliest convenience.

We must all remember that each province's engagement with the Communion has been about mutual terms, not just the Communion's. That begs the question: *Who* speaks for the Communion? Do the Primates? By themselves? And without further reference to what the provinces have accepted by way of their own internal governance?

In this way, the Covenant, the Windsor Report, and to a great degree, Lambeth 1998 I.10 is being rammed down our throats. These are *not* the mind of the Communion until they are adopted as canonical by a majority of provinces. At best, we could say some or all of these documents might be the mind of some of the Primates, and some of the bishops, and perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury, but does that make them the "mind of the Communion?".

3)"matters disciplinary. . ." The Primates have no disciplinary power over any Province -- only persuasive power at most. They most certainly have not persuaded our House of Bishops. The desire here it appears is for a disciplinary (canonical and/or constitutional?) Anglican Communion to intervene in the Episcopal Church. This appeal is being made over and over again, but appealing to a vacuum surely is a waste of energy. The appeal is simply specious.

Radner, it seems to me, might well be right to appeal to the Gospel over Church polity. But if he does so, he must be prepared (as must we all) to relinquish his license to preside and pastor as a priest in the Episcopal Church if his conscience is so violated by the actions of the body to which he has pledged loyalty. Not that I necessarily wish him to do so, but surely this might be more honorable and fruitful than appealing to disciplinary authority from the Communion that, frankly, does not appear to me to exist.

Radner seems to have concluded that the House of Bishops have no more to say on the matter. I think he misreads their statement and intentions. Based on what I have heard, there is a great deal more to be said and a very intentional appeal for further engagement -- not to delay the point, but to seek common ground and understanding.

A true way forward will be mutual -- not at the Primates' behest. The House of Bishops have made that clear. Frankly, I think the Communion benefits from that alone. We know now that to cede so much power to the Primates would invite further trouble -- and trouble that might have nothing at all to do with human sexuality.

Again, the Communique and the Primates have been invested with entirely too much power in Radner's perspective, it seems to me.

Ha. Upon further reflection, I realize I may have misunderstood some of what Radner wrote.

My point #3: "matters disciplinary. . ." appears more pointed to the discipline found in each Province. Radner seems to see unanimity here -- presumably on matters regarding human sexuality?

I continue to agree with Jim that this appeal of Radner's may be more emotional in the end than truly helpful -- or, frankly, rooted in facts about matters of governance and discipline.

This and the other news from Colorado Springs is helping to expose the true colors of ACI, which many of us have always suspected was Network Lite. Philip Turner is also sitting on one of the IRD (Institute against Religion and Democracy) boards. I whether IRD and the foundations that fund it is helping to fund ACI now and perhaps has been in the past? Is there a public document that discloses this? Does ACI deny the financial support? Time for another installment of "Following the Money"?

I peronally believe Radner's efforts to distance himself from some of the more extreme positions of IRD and its supporters. To sit on the board of this particular organization, however, is like being a member of the John Birch Society, in my view. This is an organization whose website contains a shameful attack on the National Council of Churches and whose primary purpose has always been to advance global capitalism and U.S. global leadership. If IRD had its way, we would renounce any of the insights of liberation theology or of the century old recovery of the secular meaning of the Kingdom of God, both of which now inform any Christian theology worthy of the name. IRD is opposed to the preferential option for the poor, and is therefore aligned with the anti-Kingdom.

I sense that Radner feels that the time is short for the reasserters get any measure of freedom to be in TEC but not under TEC that was provided in the Communique.

In light of the unmitigated success of the Bishops' meeting for moderates and liberals, the more time Bishops have to talk amongst themselves and seek alternatives, the weaker the Network alliance becomes.

Also, once the Exec. Council acts on the Bishops' recommendation to reject the Primates PV Scheme, the Primates will have to openly confront TEC. Something it appears that Radner feels they may not be willing to do, seeing as many may feel the scheme was only a "recommendation" anyway. Only further weakening the Network resolve.

Thus, the reasserters and the Primates must act now and dictate the terms of the ongoing dialogue. They must commit fully and openly to the "Communion Path" now, before it is too late. Even if for the Bishops choosing to stay on this "Communion Path" effectively means "leaving" TEC, and requires the Primates to either rescue them as provided under the Communique or abandon them. It feels like a go for broke gambit.

Jim writes: "Now here he is, these few days later, leading a movement to provoke confrontation with the leadership of the Episcopal Church."

Rather an understandment. Radner is openly calling for preparations to secede using the Primatial Council scheme. My elaboration here: http://churchman.blogspot.com/2007/03/quote-of-day-ephraim-radner.html

The ultimate aim: replacing TEC as the recognized member of the Anglican Communion with - what shall we call it? - ACUSA. Anglican Church in the USA.

The bottom line of all this is property. The strategy is to present the primates group as equivalent to the board of the NFL and get them to take away TEC's Anglican franchise and transfer it to CANA, etc. This would provide an argument in secular court that TEC is no longer a legitimate church.

I don't think it stands much chance of persuading the courts as TEC predates the AC. There is also a fair chance that the AC will split with a withdrawal of the Global South crowd in the not too distant future. This would further weaken an argument that it is a fount of legitimacy.

"[Dissenting bishops in the US] must respond positively to the Primates’ request, by publicly acceding to their recommendations, both in word and deed...following through with the request to gather and nominate a Primatial Vicar to a Pastoral Council – now seemingly capable of being made up only of 3 persons, given TEC’s refusal to participate. What the Council does with this rests in their hands..."

This is not confrontational, it is subversive - fully in the spirit of the IRD. Quite simply, Dr. Radner calls on dissenting bishops to ignore the leadership of TEC and work to create a separate church structure. Either he is being coached by his friends at IRD, or he is simply a logical addition to the IRD board of directors. Either way, he speaks as one who already has one foot out the door. No wonder he is fast losing credibility.

I actually don't think the "bottom line" is property. But it enters into the equation because it's far easier to mobilize secession and establish as the AC successor to TEC if the property does not stay in the hands of The Episcopal Church. It would achieve the theological ends of those unhappy with TEC.

On the point that the Global South may well leave the AC I concur. Thus far the divisions have been papered over -- excepting the (North) Americans who've been used as foils in the larger battle over the trajectory of the AC.

Bishop James Kelsey (Northern Michigan) reported on the HB meeting saying this about Radner's covenant report:

"He has been a main player with the dissident groups in the Church, and many of us were frankly shocked to realize what a significant role he has representing our Church, given his very marginal perspective. Reception of his remarks were, at best, lukewarm."

I imagine that the reception for Radner's current remarks would be positively cold, and could warrant a request that he be removed as our representative on the Covenant Group.

Kelsey added that there was standing ovation by many for Grieb's presentation.

The secessionists' plot is collapsing all around them. Williams seems to sense that too, with his first mild criticism of unnamed Churches (read Nigeria) which persecute LGBT people.

Radner's right, the writing's on the wall: the secessionists are suddenly losing and starting to get desperate. Like Mark Lawrence before him, he intones (as a "simple laborer in the vineyard"), "Now is the time to decide."

I suspect Canon Jim's reporting that Radner has joined IRD's board was indeed a factor. Secrecy has been essential to the plot's success.

I myself can't wait for the release of the report from the "HOB's Task Force on Property Disputes on the history and strategy of groups, including some in the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP) and others, to remove congregations and church property from The Episcopal Church. This report will be made available at a later date. We commend it, once publicly available, to diocesan Standing Committees." (From the "Message to God's People).

I think this piece, as well as Radner's presentation, helped convince the HOB that it was time to show some backbone. I don't know if Jim was involved, but I hope the report cited "Following the Money."

Josh,

I agree -- my tangled ruminations above might obfuscate the obvious:

Clarity tends to pay off in the end.

The House of Bishops statement, directly or indirectly, has shown a light on all the things that have been happening in the dark, and demands honest disclosure so the bluffs are revealed.

Now everyone has to take responsibility for what has been said or done. The HoB raised the integrity bar, simply by example.

The reports posted on the "listening process," while not surprising, are not depressing either, it seems to me. The Communion is not so clearly divided as Akinola and others would like it to be on matters of human sexuality, and the Church of Nigeria can now be seen in the context of the entire Communion. That makes schism all the more difficult and messy and, I hope, less attractive.

Posted for David O'Rourke: Don't know whether it is relevant, but Don Armstrong made an interesting comment on Titusonenine:

"It is clear to me that the HOB has rejected the plan developed by ACI and approved by the Primates. That does not mean the plan is not a good one or that it canʼt be a implemented by conservative dioceses."
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18494

So who brought this on a memory stick to Tanzania?

As resident of Colorado, I am following the situation in the Springs with alot of interest. My previous parish is at odds with Bishop O'Neill, and I will be very concerned if they try to follow suit and take the property that I helped pay for for the benefit of the present and also future generations of Episcopalians out of the TEC.

As a side light, by following Radner's recommendations and seeking connection with a foreign prelate, would a Windsor bishop be violating ordination vows? Whether or not it constitutes "abandoning communion" (a phrase I wish folks would avoid as confusing and too arguable), surely the "mind of the House" resolutions asserting that the definition of "constituent member of the Anglican Communion" is our definition, and that the Primatial Council violates Constitution and Canons, would make it clear how the bishops who would be receiving any presentment would interpret the issue.

mscottsail,

There are others who might be able to better speak to the canonical implications, but in principle:

"Connections" with a foreign prelate are probably permissible, but only if:

1. the foreign prelate does not function in lieu of the Presiding Bishop without the Presiding Bishop's consent and can perform no function in the Windsor bishop's diocese without the Presiding Bishop's authorization.

2. the diocese and Windsor bishop continue to abide by and follow the full canonical disciplines of the Episcopal Church and remain subject to the discipline of the House of Bishops and other canonical authorities. Wherever these come in conflict with the discipline, orders, or canonical procedures of the foreign bishop or archbishop, the Episcopal discipline takes precedence.