What a Fellowship, what a gift divine….

Of course fellowship, as in "The Anglican Communion is a fellowship…", only works that way if the representatives of the Provinces that make up this fellowship actually share time together. That is why on its own particular level the Primates Meeting is meant to be a sequestered event. It is a chance for them to meet, pray and work together…to "fellowship."

So it is more than disappointing to note that in addition to broken fellowship at the Lord's Table, about which much has been written, there is broken fellowship at regular meals. It would appear that work and politics (no, plotting) is breaking up that old gang of ours.

The Living Church yesterday reported as follows:

"The communiqué drafting committee returned to its work following dinner, while in a second floor private dining room, leaders of the Global South primates' coalition met with American and British supporters staying at the hotel." It's hard to say if the "private dining room" meeting was over dinner or whether this "coalition" retired there following dinner, but they retired of interaction with the rest of the gathering. The use of the term "coalition," sets the tone. There is not one meeting going on, there are two. The arrogance quote before the meeting that the neighboring hotel was the "real headquarters," is now reflected in a breakaway fellowship group, a coalition of Global South Primates and "American and British supporters."

As to the communiqué drafting committee: to them falls the miserable task of lifting from the several days conversations a statement about what the Primates think of the Sub Committee Report on the Episcopal Church and its response to Windsor, the continuation of the Episcopal Church in the meetings of the instruments of the Anglican Communion (Lambeth, ACC, Primates, and committees), and further requirements of / invitations to the Episcopal Church. It will also have to say something about the emerging Anglican Covenant, the draft of which will be available to the rest of the Anglican World sometime soon. So work has taken some of the Primates away to this form of post dinner indigestion. Pray for them and their fortitude.

Work and plotting has broken up the gang. I suppose this means that the remaining Primates were able to rest well.


  1. Mark+, I have enjoyed keeping up with your perspective since experiencing the courtesy with which you received my post on why TEC should be disciplined. I have been trying to locate you (and myself) on Graham Kings' (or +Exeter's) matrix which using as axes one's commitments to Lambeth 1.10 (substance) and Windsor/Dromantine (process). I assume your at familiar with it. If not, it is repeated in Dr. Goddard's analysis of the sub-group report which the ACI published last night. Goddard suggests that the results of Tanzania will be that those in quadrants I and IV find themselves challenged, and those in quadrants II and III will remain in the Communion, and thus must learn to live together. So, given their scheme, where would you locate yourself?

  2. The International Herald Tribune reports that Archbishop Akinola did not attend sunday' service.


  3. craig: "communion" is SHOWING UP (above all, at the Table of the Lord). It is in who shows up, and who doesn't, that we see revealed "by their fruits you shall know them."

    Any other definition is a schismatic's pipedream, not worthy of discussion.


    "why TEC should be disciplined": don't those Episcopalians who argue this, mean "...except those who think like me (that believe TEC should be disciplined): Voila! A 'College of Bishops'!)"

    In short, it's just a euphemism for (abusive) POWER-OVER.

  4. jcf,
    thanks for your comment. I would agree with both if they stood by themselves. However in both of the two points you ignore the relevant context and so we end up talking past each other. I am asking Mark where he locates himself in a scheme offered by Lord Exeter that many have adopted in trying to analyze the distribution of positions invested in the Communion. I ask Mark this because I see we share a lot because of our common commitment to Christ even though we disagree on Lambeth 1.10. It would sadden me if I were no longer in the same church as such a Christian. The scheme I mentioned seems to be something I have validated by my personal experience; that is, that there are two groups (quadrants 1 and 4) both of which seem to be headed towards 'walking apart.' And so the future communion will consist mostly of those in quadrants 2 and 3 over time. So I ask Mark, where do you locate yourself. I am hoping it is in 2 or 3, but I don't know.

    As far as your second comment, the context is an article I wrote which explains why TEC should be disciplined. Mark posted it here. It has nothing to do with the college of bishops. My reasoning has to do with the perpetuation of non-violent violence. It's definitely about power, but my thesis had to do with the problem of neocolonialism. So your response doesn't really fit the context.


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.