STILL ON PATROL

Meanwhile, Back at the TEO Ranch...

I haven't posted about The Episcopal Organization (TEO) in some time, well, because there hasn't been much to say that hasn't already been said many times over.  But this week's news that Bishop Charles Bennison has had his ecclesiastical conviction and deposition overturned by a TEO appellate court cannot go by without some comment.  I will defer to my colleagues, Chris Johnson of Midwest Conservative Journal, and the Anglican Curmudgeon, for a more detailed statement of the facts, events, and canonical issues (click on links to the right).

If you will remember the Bennison case, Chuckie, who was Bishop of Pennsylvania, was charged with "conduct unbecoming" and a few other things related to his knowing cover-up of his brother's sexual abuse of a minor girl.  Clear evidence that Chuckie knew what his brother had done, and not only took no action of any description, but instead added to the emotional toll by his scoffing at the girl and her family, was introduced at the trial.  Now, however, an appellate "court" has overturned the conviction, saying the statute of limitations had run.

So, Chuckie gets the advantage of his own cover-up and delay in this sordid situation coming to light, by his conviction being overturned for the charges being brought too late?  Oh, how so very TEO is that decision?  Of course, to top things off, Chuckie has expressed his intent to re-assume his position as Bishop of Pennsylvania, even though the Diocese has made it clear they do not want him back.  In addition to the cover-up, Chuckie has, in the words of one Diocesan official, "taken a wealthy Diocese and made it a poor one."  Not to mention alienating a significant portion of both the clergy and laity of the Diocese.

Even the left-wing of the Episcopal blogosphere has urged Chuckie to resign, so, as Chris Johnson observed, he will find soon enough that he has few friends among his fellow revisionists when he jumps back in the ecclesiastical saddle.  There can be little doubt that he has been and will continue to be an embarassment to TEO.

Is there any wonder that the Roman Catholic Church probably gives thanks daily for the existence of TEO?  Between the LGBT issues, a regular course of scandals among TEO clergy, TEO's acceptance of disgraced and defrocked Catholic clergy, and TEO's self-destructive behavior, the Vatican's emissaries in the U.S. have got to be delighted with the extent to which the heat has been mis-directed away from them.

The Chicken and Egg Conundrum at TEO

Sarah Hey at Stand Firm has written a terrific post entitled "The Buffoonish Cluelessness of Katherine Jefferts Schori"; click on the Stand Firm link at right and read her spot-on analysis of the inconsistent and facts-ignorant stance taken by the Presiding Heretic with regard to cross-border interventions and the so-called moratoria on same.

Many of the views and positions taken by TEO are borne of the liberal/revisionist tendency to orient any controversy to place themselves, or their favored groups of people, in the position of being a "victim."  For example, the liberal view of criminals in this day and age is to excuse their behavior because they are somehow "victims of society."  Joran Van Der Sloot, who by all appearances should be the prime suspect in at least two brutal murders of young women, is seen by some liberals as a "victim" of mental illness.

This is so painfully true of TEO.  Rather than acknowledging that their revisionist pseudo-theology is what has virtually destroyed an historic Christian denomination by turning it into a secular, Unitarian  social club, the disciples of the Presiding Heretic tend to view themselves as "victims" of cross-border interventions by orthodox Bishops. In the TEO mind-set, orthodox Bishops came into America for no reason and in so doing "destroyed" the relationships between orthodox Episcopalians and their church.

The fact of the matter is that the relationship between Episcopalians and the leadership of TEO has been eroding at an ever-increasing pace for several decades.  Only after large numbers of Episcopalians were crying for help and refuge from the liberal revisions did orthodox clergy from around the world heed the call and come to the rescue.  Just as missionaries have historically gone to spread Christianity to those who have not heard of its wonders and the power of faith, these orthodox Bishops responded to the call to re-establish Christianity in the Anglican sphere of North America.

Taking on the mantle of victim-hood is simply a device to rationalize bad or wrong behavior.  "It's not my fault I'm a criminal, I was abused as a child" and other such statements muddy up our criminal courts to distract the process from the simple truths of guilt or innocence.  Similarly, TEO and the Presiding Heretic cannot justify their selective rejection of the Bible and centuries-old Anglican teachings by any logical or cogent means.  As a result, their only rhetorical refuge is to tar the orthodox with the broad brush of name-calling and accusations of wrong-doing.

This tactic has been in the playbook of liberal causes for as long as we can remember.  The Civil Rights movement would brand anyone who opposed them, rightly or wrongly, as a "racist."  Women's groups brand their opposition as "misogynists."  LGBT groups use "homophobe" in a similarly misguided fashion.  In so doing, the opposition is placed immediately on the defensive to explain its position or behavior.  It is without question a viable, useful tactic, but in my opinion is also a form of discrimination in its broad-brush characterization of anyone who may disagree.

We are long past the time where any engagement in rhetorical debate with TEO or the Presiding Heretic has any value.  TEO's continued re-orientation of the facts is but one more piece of the puzzle that leads to that inevitable conclusion.  There is no question that the orthodox have been driven away by the revisionists in TEO, and that TEO has itself walked steadily away from traditional Anglican teachings.  Honest acceptance of these facts, and a mutual withdrawal from the theological battlefield with the purpose of returning to the business of saving souls for Jesus Christ is the only sensible solution whatsoever.

Has Canterbury Thrown Down Gauntlet at Presiding Heretic?

George Conger has reported, without citing to specific sources, that a private letter was delivered to the Presiding Heretic at the April 17 consecration of Dr. Ian Douglas as Bishop of Connecticut, in which +Rowan Williams has asked the Presiding Heretic, Katherine Jefferts-Schori, to consider stepping down from active participation in the activities of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

Although media spokespersons for both Canterbury and TEO will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a letter, many in the blogosphere who are skilled in reading the Anglican tea leaves believe this letter, or something substantially to its effect, to be real.  For example, several have noted a more defensive and peevish tone in the Presiding Heretic's statements and writings over the last two months, which could certainly be attributable to being asked to not participate in this important body of the Communion.  One could speculate that Canterbury's May 28 public Pentecost letter may have, in part, resulted from TEO's lack of response, or refusal to back away from Communion activities.

Taking this speculation in its most positive light, some have suggested that this may be part of a deft campaign to get TEO to choose to walk away from the Communion, rather then being kicked out.  This also has some merit;  it would not be unlike liberals/revisionists to stamp away, take their ecclesiastical ball, and go "home."  We have seen that dynamic in many contexts.  Given his past bumbling, it is hard for me to credit +Williams with such a strategy, but I can easily see where he would go the long way 'round to avoid going down in Anglican history as the Archbishop who kicked out the U.S. and Canada.  Of course, an orthodox alternative awaits him in ACNA.

Several years of watching the decline of the Episcopal Church and the failure/refusal of the Anglican Communion to come to grips with TEO's revisionism have caused me to be miserly in meting out any optimism that the existing schism within Anglicanism will finally be recognized and accepted.  There is little question that TEO and Canada have gone the way of secular Unitarianism; they remain Anglican in label only.  Honesty in that regard would be truly refreshing.

Will there be anything interesting in this regard to come from the upcoming Executive Council meeting?  I think this will depend on whether the Presiding Heretic wants it to be so, and whether any sub rosa communications have even been revealed to Council members.  We will nevertheless keep our ears to the ground, and our fingers crossed for something positive for Anglican orthodoxy.

Anglican District of Virginia Has Its Antietam

In keeping with my string of comparisons of the Virginia Eleven/ADV litigation to Civil War battles, the recent decision of the Virginia Supreme Court strikes me as an Antietam - brutally fought, but in the end a draw that sends the parties on to more fighting.  I would recommend going to Stand Firm to read the entire 32-page decision, and to Anglican Curmudgeon for a well-detailed legal analysis that I will not attempt to duplicate.

The Court engaged in some interpretive hair-splitting in this decision, finding that a "division" could occur in the absence of legislative action by the church governing body, thus ruling against TEO, but at the same time finding that the CANA-affiliated ADV was not a "branch" of TEO, thus ruling against the ADV on this issue.  The upshot was the Court invalidated the Fairfax Circuit Court's ruling in favor of the ADV, but sent the case back for further proceedings on the property dispute.

Sadly, the Court's ruling will no doubt result in both sides spending thousands more to resolve the ownership of the ADV church properties, several of which are historic and date to the inception of the Church of England in American colonies.  This battle is made ever more pointed to the ADV members in the aftermath of the sale of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, NY, to a Muslim group for 1/3 the price the Anglican congregation offered to pay.  My stomach curdles at the thought of historic Truro Church becoming an Islamic Learning Center.

The pain continues, and there is little sign that TEO will let up and allow orthodox congregations to depart in peace.  After the recent letter from Canterbury, and the interpretation of same by Canon Kenneth Kearon, TEO will be taking this Court decision as a "win" and celebrating after what has been a difficult two weeks for the Presiding Heretic.

"The Guardian", or Garbagemen?

A recent editorial in the English newspaper, "The Guardian", about the persecution of homosexuals, contained this paragraph:

Britain is also not without influence in countries where persecution is institutionalised. A particular obligation falls on the Anglican church, which counts in its communion clergymen who preach venom and hatred. The Anglican bishop of Uyo in Nigeria, Isaac Orama, has described homosexuals as "inhuman, insane, satanic and not fit to live".

Jackie Bruchi at Stand Firm is 100% accurate in saying that any Google novice could have determined that this statement is, in fact, wholly incorrect.  The reality is that Bishop Orama has vehemently denied making such a statement, and the UPI, which picked up the story from the News Agency of Nigeria, retracted the story.  The News Agency of Nigeria reporter also apologized for the misrepresentation and promised a retraction, which was issued on September 12, 2007:

This is to inform the agency and the general public that the report on the above subject credited to the Anglican Bishop of Uyo Rt. Rev. Isaac Orama was untrue.  I wish to state here that the report was not a true reflection of what the interview he granted journalists while Bishop Orama never made any statement at any time to condemn perpetuators of such unbiblical acts to such an extent as was reflected in the report.  The Bishop was wrongly misrepresented and misquoted and I hereby render my apologies to him, the Anglican Diocese of Uyo and the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) for embarrassment caused them by the report.

So, just as the Archbishop of Canterbury reacted with a strong condemnation in 2007, apparently  without  doing Bishop Orama the basic courtesy of verifying whether he had actually made the inflammatory statement, the Guardian, over 2 and 1/2 years later, has repeated the falsehood without so much as doing a small bit of research to see what had happened after the alleged statement took place.  If the nameless Guardian author was trying to make the point that the Anglican Church can exert its influence, he/she apparently did not even bother to discover that +Williams had also wrongly condemned Bishop Orama. 

This sort of tactic, building false accusation upon vituperative accusation, is sadly common among those who seek to portray those who disagree with their revisionist sensibilities as hateful, insensitive people.  This is one and the same with branding one who disagrees with a racially-based political position a "racist", one who disagrees with a gender-based political position a "misogynist", and/or one who disagrees with a sexual orientation-based political position a "homophobe."  Such tarring with a broad brush is no less a discriminatory tactic, regardless of the intentions which may reside behind such sentiments.

There are very few, if any, true orthodox Christians who have called for the extermination of homosexuals.  While the orthodox do believe, as written in the Bible, that homosexuality is not acceptable in the eyes of God, it is in God's hands of what may become of unrepetentant  homosexuals.  Yet those who would discard those parts of the Bible that instruct against homosexuality seem also to have discarded the Commandment about "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  Exodus 20:16.
 

Archbishop's Letter Much Ado About Little

I have been holding off writing anything about the letter written by the Archbishop of Canterbury that was triggered by the consecration of Mary Glasspool and other acts that make it abundantly clear that there will be no "gracious restraint" by TEO in terms of respecting not only the tenets of Anglicanism, but the many requests from the Anglican Communion that TEO put a hold on its "innovations."  Why?  It's not really news, or anything of much significance.

Sure, he makes a veiled threat to not invite TEO and Canada to certain meetings, and perhaps even certain other provinces he sees as engaging in border-crossing.  But how can he possibly equate the revisionists' rejection of central religious teachings of the Communion with a procedural/jurisdictional matter that was only prompted by the orthodox seeking rescue from the former?  Theology "diversity" that is in reality heresy is far and away a greater danger to the future of the Anglican Communion than a few African Bishops ministering to orthodox brethren in the U.S.

Canterbury's biggest problem, and some would say his best skill, is indulging in obfuscation and hopelessly cluttered patterns of thought and writing that lead to no clear understanding of his meaning, thus allowing all sides to mine his writings for meaningful, and favorable, nuggets.  In other words, trying to read his letters gives me a headache, and I'm an attorney who is used to reading "legalese."

This controversy is well down the road.  The divisions in Anglicanism are clear, and established.  Anything short of declaring an open break with TEO is, at this point, meaningless.  And anything short of recognizing ACNA is just another abandonment of the orthodox by an Archbishop who is more concerned about not presiding over the break-up of Anglicanism than he is about upholding Christianity as it was handed down from the Saints.

The letter is less-than-nothing.  It doesn't even really kick the proverbial can down the road.  Rather, it does nothing more than balance the same can on the end of the Archbishop's nose.

Have Things Changed for the Orthodox?

Is it just me, or have things changed for the orthodox Anglicans of the world?  I sense that those who may have once wanted to fight for the soul of the Episcopal Church, or even of the Anglican Communion, have virtually conceded that battle.  There is less urgency, and less stridency in the air, and the orthodox seem to be facing the issues with a weary resignation that the old fights, except for property matters, are winding down.  After all, how much more can be said about the heresy of the Episcopal Church that has not been written or spoken dozens of times over?

In some ways, the orthodox seem to be finally starting to look ahead to better days when the orthodox Anglicans of the world will band together to spread the Good News of the Scriptures and the historic faith handed down from the Saints, and break all ties to the heretical faux-theology of TEO, and of Canterbury.

Many of these orthodox may not yet be fully conscious of this change.  It is in some ways subtle, in the tone and frequency of blog posts and other communications among those who have for so long been engaged in this fight.  There is a sense of resignation that TEO is inexorably going to do what it will do to convert itself into a secular, social-justice based organization, using the Bible only insofar as it can be turned to justify their secular goals.  If one is not yet convinced, the upcoming Glasspool consecration should be the nail in the proverbial coffin of belief in the possibility to "reform" TEO back into a Christian organization. 

GAFCON has, through Archbishop Kolini, specific actions to be taken within the overall Communion to advance the cause of the orthodox, including probably rejection of the Covenant.  In so doing, is it possible that a line has been drawn in the sand that could lead to the orthodox, particularly the Global South, rendering Canterbury further down the road toward complete irrelevancy?  And, GAFCON's open embrace of Abp. Bob Duncan, +Mark Lawrence, and others from among the North American orthodox clergy is an obvious step away from Canterbury.

If this sense is right, and we are not just in some lull, a proverbial eye of the storm, then I, for one, say it is about time.  The Bible warns us about false prophets and false teachings, and the dangers of associating with such.  TEO and the Presiding Heretic believe their innovations are "prophetic" and driven by the Holy Spirit, and they are not about to come down off the mountain of their errors.  They are trodding a path that orthodox believers should not tread, at the risk of their very souls.

Maybe it's just me, but change is in the air, in a way it has not been there before.

Jesus Christ and Modern Culture

There have been many articles, studies, polls, and opinions offered lately on the so-called "decline" of Christianity, and of allegedly Christian religious denominations, in today's society.  We also have seen the growth in the persecution of Christians, not only by militant factions of competing religions, but by the "mainstream media", which is always looking for someone of strong beliefs of which to make fun.

But two recent news items make fodder for thought on these issues.

First, the Comedy Channel has let slip that, while they have pulled or edited content in the "South Park" animated series relating to any jokes or comedic efforts about Islam or Mohammed, they are working on a new animated series featuring a "Jesus Christ" character who moves to New York City to get away from his father's "enormous shadow."  According to Internet entertainment site "Popeater", "The show presents Jesus' father as an apathetic man who would rather play video games than listen to his son talk about his new life, according to Comedy Central's thumbnail sketch of the idea."

So, according to the Comedy Channel, "South Park" cannot show "Mohammed" in a bear costume, and they edit out a speech by "Mohammed" about intimidation, but it's OK for them to produce a series about "Jesus Christ" finding himself in New York City, with a gamer for a father?  I may be dense and not hip to what may be funny, but this concept wholly escapes me.  According to the Comedy Channel, the religion that threatens them must be respected, but a religion that is not of violence does not deserve the same?

Second, in Northampton, Massachussetts, a 20-year-old woman was arrested and cited for running down a pedestrian in a cross-walk.  In and of itself, that's not national news, but probably more evidence of driver inattention related to texting or cell phone usage.  What makes it national news is that the victim was named "Lord Jesus Christ."  Yep, he had his name legally changed to "Lord Jesus Christ" some years ago.  Imagine the surprise of first responders when they checked his I.D.?  The good news is that "Lord Jesus Christ" only suffered minor facial injuries, and was treated and released.

This second incident strikes me as a perfect metaphor for what the Presiding Heretic has done to the Episcopal Church, running it down in a theological crosswalk.  The metaphor breaks down, however, in that her hit-and-run of TEO has done far more damage than "minor facial injuries", and in fact will likely result in vehicular homicide charges.

And what if the pedestrian's name had been Mohammed?  Probably another jihad moment, and a truck bomb for Northampton.  Good luck for them she only ran down "Lord Jesus Christ", who has probably forgiven her already.

Actually, I don't know what all this means, but it does look to me like further erosion in the public perception of, and respect for, the Christian religion.

It's the National Day of Prayer, And It's O.K.

Today is the National Day of Prayer, a tradition the U.S.A. has observed sporadically for its first 150 years, and annually since 1952.  Today, once again, I do not see any evidence of government coercion of any of us to kneel and pray, nor of law enforcement rounding up those who do not participate.  So what's all the fuss?

The National Day of Prayer was created by Federal statute and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman in 1952.  It was amended in 1988 to designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.  The law can be found at 36 United States Code, section 119, and says:  "The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals." 

Before this statute was passed, we have had at least three other proclamations of a National Day of Prayer.  The First Continental Congress called for such a day as they contemplated declaring our independence from England.  President John Adams declared a day of prayer to assist the United States as the fledgling nation faced a possible war with France, our former ally.  And President Abraham Lincoln declared a day of prayer in the midst of the War Between the States.

All of this, but it was not until 2010 that a Federal Judge declared the statute un-Constitutional in a suit brought by an organization of atheists and agnostics, the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  In finding that the FFRF has sustained a "concrete injury" and thus did have standing to sue, the Court ruled: "adopting [the] defendants' view of standing would allow the government to have unrestrained authority to demean members of any religious group without legal consequence. The federal government could declare the 'National Day of Anti-Semitism' or even declare Christianity the official religion of the United States, but no one would have standing to sue because no one would have to 'pass by' those declarations."

Huh?  Please look back at the actual statute.  It does no such thing as the examples cited by the Court.  it takes no position for or against a particular religion, nor for or against religion at all.  It merely brings attention to prayer by designating a day on which the people "may" turn to their God in prayer.  Indeed, as some religious groups have pointed out, every day should be a day of prayer and we should not need a special day, but where is the harm of having a day on which prayer is a focus?

I am a living, breathing example of the power of prayer.  In 2003 I had a protracted illness that by all statistics should have claimed me.  Once it was over and I had recovered, my surgeon told me that I had been in the worst 5% of cases, and that over half in that group did not survive.  He then locked eyes with me and said, "I have no scientific explanation for your recovery."  I know what he meant.  I was on prayer lists in five states, not to mention in the prayers of my family and friends, and through the help of two very able clergy during my stay, I learned new perspectives on prayer that changed my whole relationship to God.  I fully believe I am alive today through the power of prayer.

I'm not saying that those who do not survive illnesses are deficient in prayer in some way or another.  What I am saying is that there is a power beyond all of us that is accessible by prayer, and that power may or may not answer in the way we ask.  But I have utter faith that God listens, and does what is right for our lives.  What could possibly be wrong, or harmful, or injurious to non-believers, that we as a nation call upon that power at least one day per year?

This controversy has its roots in the First Amendment:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  Again, go back up this column and read the statute.  I do not read its language as establishing a state religion, or containing any prohibition on anyone's right to free exercise of religion. 

The so-called "separation of church and state" is not a Constitutional principle, but is a "walling-off" of secular government from religious establishments sought by certain authors and philosophers over the years.  This philosophy has from time to time crept into our jurisprudence, but it is not explicitly part of the First Amendment, or anywhere else in our Constitution.  It is simply easier to draw the bright line of "separation" and to conjure up demons and threats from the religious community, than to analyze the plain meaning and intent of the First Amendment language.

In my not-so-humble-opinion, this sort of litigation is part and parcel of the ongoing demonization of Christianity that pervades our society.  A vocal faction of American society would at the same time coddle and protect Islamic radicals who park truck bombs in Times Square, but attack Christians for all manner of perceived wrongs.  If I choose to put extra effort into my prayers today because it is the National Day of Prayer, how have I harmed anyone, or even remotely scared anyone?  As I said, the government is not forcing us to kneel and pray, nor arresting those who do not.  Otherwise, why can't we just leave a nice thing alone?

Communique from the Fourth Global South to South Encounter - Just Another "Strongly Worded Statement", or More?

The Fourth Global South to South Encounter just wrapped up in Singapore.  Attended by 130 delegates from 20 Anglican Provinces in Africa, South America, the West Indies, and Asia, this gathering represented well over half of the active membership in the Anglican Communion.  For this reason alone, Canterbury and 815 should be paying attention to what they said and did, but I wouldn't bet on it.

As is usual procedure, the conference closed with a Communique, which included strongly-worded condemnation of TEO and the Anglican Church of Canada, as well as Canterbury.  And, as is usual procedure, many of us who read these words wonder if they will amount to anything more than adding to the thickness of the book of previous "strongly worded statements."  Who can know? 

But, this time, paired with a speech given by Archbishop Kolini, and a couple of thumb-in-the-eye gestures such as welcoming +John Howe and +Mark Lawrence as honored guests, and having +Bob Duncan of ACNA officiate at a Communion service, the strong words at least appear to be paired with some proposals for action to go forward beyond the "listening process" and other nonsense the Anglican Communion has been engaged in for years.

From the Communique:

"...we continue to grieve over the life of The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada and all those churches that have rejected the Way of the Lord as expressed in Holy Scripture. The recent action of TEC in the election and intended consecration of Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as a bishop in Los Angeles, has demonstrated, yet again, a total disregard for the mind of the Communion. These churches continue in their defiance as they set themselves on a course that contradicts the plain teaching of the Holy Scriptures on matters so fundamental that they affect the very salvation of those involved. Such actions violate the integrity of the Gospel, the Communion and our Christian witness to the rest of the world. In the face of this we dare not remain silent and must respond with appropriate action."

More:

"Some of our Provinces are already in a state of broken and impaired Communion with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. Their continued refusal to honor the many requests [1] made of them by the various meetings of the Primates throughout the Windsor Process have brought discredit to our witness and we urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to implement the recommended actions. In light of the above, this Fourth South-to-South Encounter encourages our various Provinces to reconsider their communion relationships with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada until it becomes clear that there is genuine repentance."

And more:

For many generations Anglicans have lived together with a shared understanding of our common faith; indeed among our great gifts has been the Book of Common Prayer that has provided a foundation for our common life. In recent years the peace of our Communion has been deeply wounded by those who continue to claim the name Anglican but who pursue an agenda of their own desire in opposition to historic norms of faith, teaching and practice. This has led to a number of developments including the GAFCON meeting that took place in Jerusalem in June 2008...

"We are currently reviewing the proposed Covenant to find ways to strengthen it in order for it to fulfill its purpose. For example, we believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion."

"Over the last 20 years we have been distracted by conflicts and controversies that have kept us from effectively fulfilling the Great Commission. While we have been so distracted, Christian heritage, identity and influence has continued to decline in the West. We believe that there is a need to review the entire Anglican Communion structure; especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office; in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of our Anglican Communion."

So far, so good.  This at least sounds like the Global South declaring that the so-called Instruments of Communion are not getting it done, and that without some significant strengthening and modification, it is unlikely that this segment of the Communion will sign onto the Covenant.  The latter part would be a strong blow to the Covenant, upon which +Williams has pinned his hopes for any form of unity.  If strengthened and a reference to Lambeth 1.10 is added, there would be slim or no chance that TEO would sign on, even after stalling it for another six to nine years.

Add to this the call by Archbishop Emannuel Kolini, the Global South's senior Bishop, for a Global Ecumenical Council among all Anglican Provinces, similar to the early church Councils in Nicea and Chalcedon.  Abp. Kolini sees such a Council as a solution to put an end to endless rounds of Primates' Meetings and other conferences, that have achieved nothing to resolve the controversies within the Church, and allowed the drift of segments such as TEO and Canada away from the historic faith.

Abp. Kolini declared that Anglicanism needs a "new way forward", and that the Global South is no longer in Communion with TEO, Canada, or Canterbury.  He proposed formation of a Primates’ Council representing all participating members churches that would serve as the governing body to decide matters of faith and order, and encourage submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture in loyalty to the Anglican tradition.  He suggested that a General Assembly be called every three years to restore unity among orthodox Anglicans and ecumenical partners.

Abp. Kolini stated:  “In a crisis the Church meets in council. Everybody is bound by the council. I have a vision for a renewed communion of the Faith Once delivered. Let the trumpet sound forth. I love the Anglican Communion but I am a Christian first. That gives me courage, purpose and a life."

Okay, this sounds good.  It is very clear by now that any of the so-called "Instruments of Communion" for which +Williams sets the agenda or controls the format have been and will be useless in terms of bring s resolution to the destruction of historic Anglicanism.  It should also be clear that +Williams is not interested in taking so bold a step - after all, he continues to urge inactivity and "restraint" when the time for those things has long passed. 

Of course, we also know after Dar Es Salaam that getting the Presiding Heretic to sign on the bottom line means little, in that she would do so with her fingers and toes crossed and do as she pleases once she returns to America.  I think, however, that Abp. Kolini envisions a global Anglican Council as having more teeth and strength of conviction than any of the "strongly worded statements" issued so far, such that hopefully a refusal by TEO to accept the historic faith and be bound by it would be the end of its affiliation with Anglicanism.

On balance, I see these statements as bearing some better news than simply another "strongly worded statement" that makes us cheer but accomplishes nothing.  The strong statements are now starting to be coupled with suggestions and proposals for action, i.e., a specific "way forward" that just might get something done.  Of course, those in authority in orthodox Anglicanism must be willing to take these steps and see them through, without losing the evangelical fervor developed in meetings such as that just concluded.  Past history makes me skeptical, but I remain hopeful.