While it “hasn’t necessarily dealt with the problems of the Anglican Communion once and for all,” the 14th Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting has enabled members to “build solid relationships with the local church and with one another,” Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said on May 12, the final day of the 12-day council meeting.
“It has deepened our sense of obligation to, and involvement with, each other,” he said. His assessment of a meeting where delegates emerged “more hopeful” about prospects for the Anglican Communion was echoed by ACC delegates in a plenary, where they discussed key messages that they would bring back to their churches.
In a press conference on the last day of the ACC meeting, Archbishop Williams cautioned The Episcopal Church (TEC), whose General Convention is scheduled to be held this summer, against possible action ignoring the call for “gracious restraint” on the ordination of persons living in same-gender unions to the episcopate and on same-sex blessings. Those moratoria, including cross-provincial interventions, were recommended by the Windsor Continuation Group (WCG) and endorsed by this ACC meeting.
“I think actions on that resolution would instantly suggest to many people that The Episcopal Church would prefer not to go down the route of closer (relationships). That’s how it will be perceived,” he said in response to a question as to whether such action could push what he had warned as a possibility of the Anglican Communion splitting into a federation.
Some my thoughts are [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/22567/#363370 ]here[/url].
In particular, Rowan rebuffs the call of the ACI, Rev Dr Noll and Dean Munday to redress the obvious shenanigans, which thwarts the will of the Communion – Resolution A passing overwhelmingly and the passing of the amendment to the Resolution B making it into A but no vote on Resolution B, itself.
But like David Handy+, it doese indeed makes me more hopeful. Less and less trust the old ditherer. There is no hope in Rowan Williams or a Rowan Williams centered solution – such will not be forthcoming only endless delay.
The following is not a one-liner; it has two lines.
As the indians say in the movies: “Our great white father across the waters has spoken.” But with the evidence from the paternalistic disaster of the Covenant snafu recorded for us all, this goes beyond “King George is nekkid” (a southernism); it verges on The Big Lie.
I have been following this discussion on this site for a several days, and must admit surprise at the level of anger and hatred expressed by most on this Weblog by US conservatives toward Archbishop Williams and the Episcopal Church. However, I cannot determine what US conservatives wanted or expected to occur at the conference that would aid them in their desire to break apart the Episcopal Church.
You say there is no centered solution. But if one believes that, then there should have been no expectations from this conference in the first place. Surely no one expected that those who consider themselves moderates and progressives would simply bend to the will of those who consider themselves conservatives or orthodox.
If there is no centered solution then, the split in the Anglican Communion into a federation of at least two sides is inevitable and should progress so that we can stop waisting time. I suspect the leaders of both sides fear such a split. One side fearing a loss of numbers and the other fearing the loss of much needed financial support from the Western world. In the end, logic leads me to conclude US conservatives hoped against reason that moderates would bend to the will of the African churches and attack the Episcopal Church. That having failed, they now hope for a split in the Communion they can somehow exploit to their advantage. However, I cannot discern what that advantage would be. Nor can I discern the truthful source of such anger and hatred toward other Christians over disagreements in Theology. I wish I could have a better explanation.
#3 “Conservatives vs. Moderates?” is hardly an accurate description.
I think that there is little moderate about chagning the meaning of the word marriage. Nor is it moderate to deny the creeds. Nor is it moderate to say an unbatpized person can receive communion. And there is little indication that the changes in basic beliefs are going to remain ‘optional’ in any true sense for very long.
Jeff marx, I never said it was conservatives v moderates. I believe there are three groups here. Those who call themselves progressives, those who call themselves conservatives or orthodox, and moderates. Progressive and conservative forces are pulling the Communion at either end. While moderates, who believe all can coexist despite differences in theology are trying to keep the Communion together with a centered solution.
I do not understand what you are saying when you say changes in basic belief are not going to remain optional. Belief is always optional. There will always be a church home for all christians. It may require finding a different church than one is in, or it may not. I suspect individual dioceses and even parishes will continue to be conservative, progressive or moderate.
Anyone who uses the word “hatred” to describe the comments here is using such hyperbole and a creating such a straw man that their comments cannot be considered seriously.
Perhaps I should not use the term hatred, or perthaps one can debate the term hatred; but do you want me to recount some of the things said about Archbishop Williams and others I consider to evidence some level of hate.
What you are seeing, QV, is justifible anger over the long record of Williams abusing the orthodox within the Anglican Communion and the conclusion that Dr. Williams is, for all intents and purposes, a catspaw for the heretics running TEC.
Maybe you can school us, since you’ve taken on the role of Tone Police here, in the proper way to express these ideas that will not run afoul of your delicate sensibilities.
QV, no point in talking about it as if it is, or is supposed to be, a tea party.
The problem I have is that the man, repeatedly, engages in deliberate tactical confusion to undermine traditional thought, and can now add illegally monkeying with parliamentary procedure and stabbing the Covenant drafters in the back(also thus, probably, irrevocably altering or delaying the Covenant) to his bag of tricks.
Sorry if that tone is not “moderate” enough for you.
Jeffersonian, as always, you are one of my homeys.
🙂
I think it’s important to call things by their proper names, JG, and I don’t particularly care for the type of linguistic bullying QV’s is practicing. Does anyone doubt that, if Rowan Williams was female, gay or black that we’d be denounced for our racism, sexism and/or homophobia? Lamentably lacking those characteristics, we’re just smeared with the generic “hatred” of the ABC. Sorry, but I’m not going to surrender that ground.
Dear QV
just one question: what do you mean (in#3) by the phrase bending “to the will of the African churches” ? I’m curious about why Africa (rather than “Africa, most of Asia, the West Indies, a good deal of Latin America, the Middle East and many conservatives in the western world”) is the focus of your attention here?
Grant LeMarquand
Jeffersonian you are wrong, as to my feelings. I am certainly not the tone police, and I do not want to be thought or tone police. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I think it extremely important that each person speak exactly as he feels. How else do I know you, where you stand, and whether you are someone with whom I can have a meaningful dialog. If you don’t want to call it hate, fine call it anger I do not care what you call it. I think there are some here who have passed beyond mere anger, but If so that is fine as well. You should fully express that feeling as well. Just as I expressed nothing more than surprise at the level of “anger” not judgement.
JG what is the problem with a delay in the Covenant? What is to be gained by rushing? If the Communion stays together what difference does it make if the Covenant is signed this year, next year or two years from now? What do you think the Covenant would do for conservatives?
GL, I focused on the African churches because from the comments over the last few days I believe conservatives in the US are looking to them for something. I just do not know what it is they are looking for. Perhaps if I did I would understand better their intense anger, over this very predictable delay.
I don’t presume that it was the blog that inserted that “hatred” in your post, QV. Hatred is personal, and I know of no one here that hates Rowan Williams. I think I can speak for all when I say that I would cheer an expression of orthodoxy from him, followed close-on by actions in concert with his expression. Someone that hates him would not do that.
But unless and until that happens, and Williams continues to betray the faithful, he, and you, should not expect anything but righteous anger.
Heck, I wouldn’t even say “righteous anger”, I’d say “rightful anger”.
Jeffersonian, I surely was not disagreeing with you in any way, shape, or form.
And, QV, rushing/not rushing is not the same issue as outright sabotage.
It’s not about what the Covenant would do for conservatives. It would outline the faith/doctrine to which we all should adhere. Williams has helped TEC evade discipline for the Robinson consecration for six years, and of course will go further. That consecration stepped way outside the tenets of our faith, which are outlined in Holy Scripture, the Creeds, and the 39 articles. There has been no penalty for said defiance, and possibly never will. The man has sabotaged the Windsor Process at every opportunity, and, to coin Jeff, does continue to betray the faithful, not to mention even his fast academic friends. They should now see where their bread is buttered. He not only engages in betrayal, he tries to make it look like it was all just a bumbling accident. “Oops”…which is the worst, passive-aggressive, evade-responsibility tactic of all. I don’t know the man, so I can’t hate him. But I find his M.O. repugnant and serpentine.
And now I’m done, and will no longer feed any trolls here.
QV,
I ask about your reference to Africa because Wrest Indians, Asians, Latin Americans, etc etc. have been just as concerned about the situation with TEC and the canadian church introducing innovations damaging to the communion as a whole, and yet the African churches are constantly refered in many ‘liberal’ (or whatevwer term you wish, I’m not married to one set of designations) circles as the culprits, the schismatics, tetc. Comments focusing on ‘Africans’, then, as if it was they alone who are upset with the western churches, are in danger of making Africa a scapegoat, making Africans the villians. The move from stereotyping to racism is a short trip indeed.