Fishy business in New Orleans

A source in New Orleans tells me the House of Bishops, due to finish their deliberations later today, are like a 'shoal of fish'. The source, who is inside the meeting, says: 'They are all swimming in the same direction. The difficulty is knowing which direction they are going in. They could suddenly move off together in a completely different direction. It is wide open still.'

AP's Rachel Zoll has done a good summary of where everything is right now. You can catch up with everything that is going on at StandFirm, including the news from LivingChurch that Rio Grande's diocesan, Oxford-educated Jeffrey Steenson, is to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. And as usual Thinking Anglicans has all the links you'll need to get up to speed on this story.

The fish analogy is not inappropriate, given the former career of the US Presiding Bishop. Another source from within the meeting agreed that it was still wide open. As I write this, the US bishops are reading through the first draft of their 'message' that will be their communique from the meeting. When it is finished, about lunch time their time (they are six hours behind) it will go to the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Primates' Meeting. They will then study it, write a report to the Archbishop of Canterbury and issue a brief statement of their own. That will be between 6pm and 9pm New Orleans time. Their report will detail where they believe the Anglican Communion is at that time, in relation to the 'message' from the US bishops. The Archbishop will then consult individually with every one of the Primates before publishing his own response.

'There has been some very dedicated hard work to find a language which the majority of the House of Bishops can gather around and which will meet the requests of the wider communion,' the second insider told me. He was definite that the Dar es Salaam communique was not going to be met in full. The question that is still wide open - the question of which direction the episcopal shoal will swim off in tonight - is whether there will be any attempt to go with Dar es Salaam, or whether they will reject it completely and utterly and veer off into the uncharted depths of schism. 'It could be anything from outright rejection of Dar es Salaam, to a genuine attempt to meet the Dar es Salaam communique on their terms. People in the meeting have been honest and frank, to the point of being quite harsh on one another. The bishops can be in no doubt of the tensions that have been caused  in the Communion. There have not been arguments but there has been plain speaking.'

I am reminded of another exchange that I understand took place during Dar es Salaam. This might have changed slightly in the telling, as it reached me third or fourth hand. And although I know the names of the various speakers, I consider it prudent not to use them. In any case you can all have fun guessing.

The gist of it is this. During a particularly tense moment in Tanzania,  an impassioned evangelical primate compared the communion to a big ship sailing along with an enormous hole in the keel. 'We are sinking,' he said, and asked what could be done to save the passengers.

A liberal Primate responded: 'Let them all fall in.'

This was not intended to be cruel, I think. It was more on the lines of the mantra: 'Let go and let God.'

Nonetheless, this remark was greeted with a dreadful silence.

The Global South Primates imagined their congregations being consumed by the encircling sharks as the Anglican ship went down. The northerners imagined themselves freezing to death in the frozen North Atlantic. No-one mentioned the Titanic. They didn't need to.

The silence was broken only when one primate whispered an appalled: 'But I can't swim.'

All I can suggest is, my dear primate, you had better learn. Fast. Unless, as we all hope, you really can walk on water... because little short of that is going to save the Church.

Here's another fishy shoal video and some music to meditate on while we wait. And eat. Loaves and fishes, anyone?

Comments

[Chris Gillibrand]

"'We are sinking,' he said, and asked what could be done to save the passengers."

There is always the Barque of Peter at hand, which while not guaranteeing a calm voyage does assure eventual landfall.

[Christine]

To all Thinking (and un-Thinking!) Anglicans.
Come home, to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ promised to be with for all days to the end of time.

[Robert Ian Williams]

The last Catholic Archbishop of York,Nicholas Heath speaking in the House of Lords as Elizabeth's henchmen pushed through the legislation to re-establish Anglicanism in 1559, stated," That in deserting the See of Peter, we risk shipwreck of Faith." Prophetic words indeed.

[Alan Marsh]

Loaves and fishes?

No, but there is a sickening aroma of heavyweight fudge....

[Chris Gillibrand]

Greetings shipmates!

[Peter Kirk]

The barque of Peter may promise eventual landfall, but some may wonder on which side of the great gulf (Luke 16:25) this will be.

Meanwhile the only hope for the Anglican ship is that the captain can close off some waterproof bulkheads, sacrificing the fatally holed parts of the ship so that the rest can survive. This is the response which needs to be made to a failure of New Orleans to endorse Dar es Salaam.

But if the captain and his officers are determined to go down with their ship, they can hardly be surprised if others take to whatever lifeboats they can find.

[Malcolm+]

Personally, I choose neither Rome nor Abuja as a lifeboat.

On Christ the solid rock I'll stand.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Personally, I choose neither Rome nor Abuja as a lifeboat.
On Christ the solid rock I'll stand".
- Malcolm+, 25 SEP 2007, 17:41:27

And Jeffrey Steenson doesn't?

[Malcolm+]

Steenson of Rio Grande (like Henderson of Upper South Carolina and Howe of Central Florida) has been a class act all the way. He has acted with integrity and has freely accepted the natural consequences of his choices. He was graceful to the Church he was leaving, even as he left.

Unlike some others, who have tried to steal the silver on the way out the door.

Steenson is persuaded that Rome is the appropriate lifeboat.

I feel no need for a lifeboat.

[Christine]

Malcolm,
Jeffrey Steenson is choosing Christ's Church. Christ didn't leave us with a choice of denominations all teaching different versions of the Christian faith. He left us with only one Church with one authority to teach one faith. Truth is one and immutable.

[Mickmac]

I can't help think of Jesus's words regarding the Law. "Not one jot or tittle will be removed"

This issue has always fascinated me as logically (of a 12yr old) brings the answer so simply to the fore.

The question is-
Why would a loving God send on us a lifestyle choice that would keep us out of His presence forever?
When His desire throughout all the canon has been to reconcile us to Him that we may know each other for always?

He hasn't.

[Malcolm+]

I do not believe Rome's pretensions, any more than I believe the pretensions of the Anglican Bishop of Abuja.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I feel no need for a lifeboat".
- Malcolm+, 28 SEP 2007, 00:16:14

"I feel no need for a lifeboat".
- Capt Edward John Smith, 15 APR 1912

[Malcolm+]

But unlike Captain Smith, my ship is soundly built, and the necessary compartments really are watertight. I am not cursed with the arrogance of unsinkability (infallibility), but merely with the assurance that my mother the Church is, as my old dogmatics professor used to say, "idefectible - meaning that it can never get so balled up that God can't fix it."

[Christine]

In Timothy 3:15, the living community of believers ie. the Church, is referred to as 'the pillar and ground of the truth'. It shows that Jesus intended to establish an authoritative teaching Church. This Church received Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, that He would always be with it, and that He would give it the Holy Spirit to teach the truth. To the visible head of the Church, He gave the power to bind and loose. Jesus emphasised the authority of His Church in safeguarding the deposit of the Faith. If at any time the Church was to teach error, then it would cease to be the pillar and ground of the truth. Jesus was referring to the Church's infallibilty when He called it the pillar and ground of the truth. Shifting and changing doctrines which have been experienced in Protestantism, and which have resulted in countless denominations, cannot be considered a foundation or ground of the truth.
Jesus Christ identified Himself completely with His Church. Jesus (the Infinite Truth) and His Church are one. Therefore, in matters of faith and morals the Church can never be wrong. We have that divine assurance. Thanks be to God.

[Malcolm+]

Even you Romans have only believed that for less than 200 years.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Even you Romans have only believed that for less than 200 years".
- Malcolm, 3 OCT 2007, 19:01:36

Perhaps you had better write your next post in Italian, Christine.
Malcolm seems to have some difficulty in understanding your English.

[Malcolm+]

"The Church of Rome I found would fit full well my constitution,

And had become a Jesuit - but for the Revolution."

[Christine]

When the Church solemnly defines a doctrine of Faith(eg the doctrine of infallibilty),she is simply reiterating a pre-existing belief. Solemn definitions of Faith are usually a response to some controversy or heresy. The Church throughout her existence has regarded herself and has been regarded by her members as infallible.
St.Cyprian writing to St.Cornelius in the 3rd century had this to say:'Heretics have the audacity to take ship and present letters from profane and schismatical folk to the See of Peter and to the principal Church whence sprang the unity of the priesthood. They never seem to realize that these latter are the Romans whose faith the Apostle proclaimed and praised; to them infidelity can have no access.'

[Malcolm+]

You do realize that there are people who don't believe that the Bishop of Rome has no more authority than any other bishop.

[Christine]

Jesus promised Peter that he was to be to the Church as a rock is to a building. He would be the one to hold the Church together. But this Church was not to begin and end with Peter and the Apostles,it was to continue for all days to the end of time. Authority preserves truth and ensures endurance.
In John 21 Christ confers on Peter the office of shepherd. St. John Crysostom, a Greek Father of the 4th century, remarked 'He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep'. Why does he pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren. If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the whole world.'

[Geoffrey Smith]

"You do realise that there are people who don't believe that the Bishop of Rome has no (sic) more authority than any other bishop".
- Malcolm, 5 OCT 2007, 20:20:31

Not as many as the people who DO believe that the Bishop of Rome has more authority than any other bishop. Catholic bishops, that is, as distinct from the fakes - who have no authority at all.

[Malcolm+]

Curious math. Do the sum total of all Protestant denomination, all Eastern and Oriental Orthodox denominations, all Anglican denominations, all Old Catholic denominations actually amount to fewer people than Rome? Who knew?

Of course, numbers aren't really the issue. It was, after all, Athanasius contra mundi, even though Athanasius was right.

Of course, with greatest courtesy, I don't call Benedict or his international staff "fake" bishops. I acknowledge their orders and treat them (if not all their pronouncements) with respect.

Indeed, a few weeks ago we prayed for him - as Patriarch of the West.

You Romans might consider that insulting Anglicans really doesn't help you change our minds.

[Geoffrey Smith]

You Anglicans might consider that insulting Catholics by calling us
Romans really doesn't help you change our minds, either.
The "international staff" of the Catholic Church are the authentic
successors of the Twelve Apostles; the clergy of the Anglican Ecclesial Community are not (Apostolicae Curae). It's certainly a case of TEC contra mundi, but, in your case, Malcolm, you can not equate yourselves with St Athanasius. You are wrong.

[Malcolm+]

I certainly imply no insult in the term "Romans." It is intended merely as a descriptor: "catholics in Communion with Rome."

I will not insult myself by implying that only such are entitled to be called catholic.

[Malcolm+]

And BTW, everyone told Athanasius he was wrong as well.

And I'm not a member of the Episcopal Church. I'm elsewhere.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I will not insult myself by implying that only such ['catholics in Communion with Rome']are entitled to be called catholic".
- Malcolm, 9 OCT 2007, 19:10:51

I quote: "US bishop defects to Catholic Church in row over gays".
- Ruth Gledhill, 25 SEP 2007

To which part of the Catholic Church did Jeffrey Steenson defect,
Malcolm? The implication is that he left a non-Catholic church to join the Catholic one. Or do you think he really stayed where he was and never actually moved away from the catholic church?

[Christine]

'A Christian man is a Catholic while he remains in the Church. Cut off, he becomes a heretic. The spirit does not follow an amputated member.'- St. Augustine of Hippo