On a matter over which several years were spent in deep discussion, study, and work, around the world, and I know serious engagement at the ACC itself, decisions were apparently made within a confused and chaotic few minutes visible to the world at large that have serious consequences for the Communion, and whose propriety is now debated (and I and the ACI are hardly the initiators of or even strident voice in this debate), and the actual significance of which remains unstated and unknown. The initial work of providing resolutions for the Council regarding the Covenant was put into the hands of a small group that from the start simply did not appear representative of the views of the whole, and the sequence of events in the debate and resolution-voting, amending, and re-voting maintained a skewed dynamic of direction.
I am not persuaded by the explanations given by the ACO representatives at their press conference that somehow the process and the final outcome represents some otherwise undefined “sense” of the meeting, ascertained in the heat of debate by the Chair and President, especially when members of that meeting, including bishops from Nigeria and Egypt, are on record as strongly disagreeing with that “sense” and indicating that at least in some significant ways it did not jibe with the “mood” of many delegates. The point here, however, is not to accuse individuals of malicious intent, nor even to argue that these perceptions of mine and others are in fact accurate. There may indeed be good explanations for why things happened the way they did. But the concrete explanations have not been forthcoming, and on a matter of such importance, fraught with enormous tensions from the start, this lack of clear illumination cannot but be perceived as substantively obfuscating. The Communion deserved better, and at the least some admission of this fact would go some way to mitigating a lingering sense on the part of many ”“ I personally have no opinion on this matter ”” that this particular outcome was more important to some than the integrity of the means by which it was reached. It has left a bitter taste.
As to the outcome itself, I am deeply disappointed. My hope had been that the hard work of the Covenant Design Group, a work that even the Covenant’s detractors admitted had carefully assessed and appropriated the suggestions and critiques from around the Communion, would be allowed by the ACC to move forward to the Provinces for their decision-making.
Good luck.
Dr Radner criticises the confused meeting and procedures. Yet if out of that a result had emanated which Dr Radner approved of I don’t believe we would be hearing complaints from him in that regard. He also is critical of Section 4 being given to a small, unaccountable group for ‘revision’ before going to the provinces. And yet the CDG was itself just such a group and his wish was the ACC would just rubber-stamp its efforts – in fact he is offended that the most representative group in the AC actually dared tamper with the CDG’s work!
Dr Radner enabled this result – by himself bringing attention to the ‘backdoor’ he was pleased to have inserted, enabling individual dioceses and non-AC entities to sign-up. It was this that made delegates nervous about Section 4. And to state that the ACC has no authority to define who gets to sign up is absurd. What gives the CDG any more right to define that?
As long as TEC has any say in the matter, no Covenant worth the paper it is written on will be forthcoming.
From his final remedial point (#5)
[blockquote] We must have the willing participation in this of all Communion Anglicans. The continued use of the “boycott†protest has proved harmful, not beneficial, to the Church’s integrity and witness. We look like the parties of the world’s civil wars, in Sri Lanka or elsewhere – showing up, refusing to show up, claiming affronts, walking away, negotiating with third parties, sniping to the press — all while the civilians are being shelled.[/blockquote]
We are more deeply a “state church”, and so we ape culture rather than shape it. When the culture stops honoring marriage as a life long covenant reflection creation and redemption, we bless divorce, remarriage, same sex unions and whatever else we are handed. We have no Biblical understanding of how to deal with conflict among believers, so we do what the pagans do, fighting and manipulating for “victory” instead of unity in truth. This will not change – it is Anglican DNA.
[blockquote] St. Paul was willing and indeed insistent that he go to Rome, the seat of the Beast, to plead his case for Christ and the injustice of his situation. Yes: political power continues to haunt our church and the form of Christian communion everywhere. But we have no reason to fear going into the center of such machinations, and facing them with the true power of God, in the Cross of Jesus Christ. It is this Cross that will determine what is folly and what is wisdom, nothing else, and the fool for Christ, we are promised, will reign with the Saints. [/blockquote]
We are not talking about an apostle with a God-given witness to the powers and principalities. We are talking about Christians who have mutually exclusive Gospels and no way to reconcile. We are talking about a vanquished church – Paul said that Christians in litigation against one another are “already defeated.”
I believe that faithful leaders have already gone and been fools for Christ in these gatherings. Might it be more foolish (in this positive sense), more cross-bearing and more powerful to let them have the coat and overcoat, bless them and move on? To admit that we’ve been “slaughtered like sheep” in order to be “more than conquerors”?
Well, this is just what we would expect from Dr. Radner. It’s a noble, irenic effort: forthright, articulate, well-reasoned, temperate, and far from shrill, despite the huge, crippling blow he and the rest of the CDG have taken as their careful, painstaking work was totally and brazenly sabotaged in Jamaica.
But admirable as it is in many ways, this statement is also hopelessly unrealistic and I find it completely inadequate as a response to the intolerable “perfidy” displayed in Jamaica. And I don’t use that emotionally loaded and highly accusatory word lightly. Dr. Radner’s tone is, in fact, overly muted. There ought to be outrage and fury in it, like Paul’s furious rebuke of the Galatians in his blistering letter to them, written in white hot anger.
Unfortunately, Dr. Radner still just refuses to admit, quite naturally and predictably given his past behavior and his huge investment in the whole Covenant process, that the Covenant is simply DOA, dead on arrival. But it is.
In particular, the irenic theologian refuses to admit the obvious, that the JSC is a totally corrupted and completely untrustworthy group that is in no way representative of the AC as a whole. He has nobly turned the other cheek after being smitten by them, but I’m sure that the only result is going to be the virtual certainty that he will be slapped across the face yet again and mockingly abused by the JSC in the future. Two thirds of the 15 members of the JSC are aligned with the bad guys in the black hats from the Global North. Now perhaps Dr. Radner is bravely willing to endure the brutality of 39 lashes from the JSC, but his martyrdom is futile for it still won’t save the AC. Nothing but the overthrow of the JSC will do that.
And I mean that literally. What is needed is NOT gradual, incremental, evolutionary change. No the time for that has passed. The need of the hour is drastic, radical, sweeping, revolutionary change. It’s high time to throw the liberal bums out who still dominate the colonial structures of the AC.
OK, that was melodramatic, rhetorical overkill. What I really mean is that the good guys in the white hats, namely the faithful, orthodox majority of the Anglican world should simply ignore the current Instruments and create whole new wineskins that will serve us well as we begin the Third Millenium of the Church. My hope, of course, is that many of the conservative primates and provinces that have kept the GAFCON/FCA movement at arm’s length so far will now move closer and join hands in rebuilding Anglicanism on a new and more solid foundation.
Sadly, Dr. Radner still refuses to face and take seriously the grim reality, which is that ALL the four Instruments of Unity in the current international strucutures of the AC have utterly failed and can’t be reasonably expected to solve our intractable, devastating conflicts that are literally tearing the AC apart.
In Kingston the fatal weaknesses of the current structures of the AC were openly exposed for all the world to see. Although he’s loath to admit it, the tragic fact is that the AC as we have known it simply won’t survive this horrible crisis. For the bottom line is the unpleasant truth that our Master stated in classic terms when he said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Some might call this mild, forbearing response by Dr. Radner a commendable sign of noble perseverance in his commitment to saving the structures of the AC at all costs. I call it Denial, and a willful, ostrich-like, burying of his head in the sand.
The old wineskins of the AC are hopelessly compromised, because all four international Instruments are themselves hopelessly divided internally. And yes, I think that includes the ABoC himself, who seems virtually paralyzed by his conflicting desires to preserve the outward institutional unity of the AC on the one hand, while also quietly favoring the pro-gay cause on the other. That is, there is no sign that he’s repented of his error and changed his sincere, but terribly mistaken, belief that God is indeed doing a strange new thing and declaring homosexual behavior now clean and morally acceptable (at least in some instances). And as for the other three Instruments, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting, and the ACC, all three have now been thoroughly discredited as means of resolving this vexed church civil war, for it’s all too clear that all three are riven to the core themselves by the same bitter and irreconciliable division.
The New Refomration will only pick up momentum after the disaster in Jamaica. And that, I’m convinced, is really a blessing in disguise. There never really was any realistic hope that the Covenant would work, because it still depended on the hopelessly compromised Instruments that have let us down so utterly and completely. New means of forging and preserving the unity of authentic Anglicanism worldwide will now have to be devised. And the abortion of the Covenant in Jamaica will undoubtedly speed up that necessary, if tragic, process.
David Handy+
Noble – may Ephraim be given a new forehead of flint.
David:
Funny, that’s not how I read it. Dr. Radner is a very even-keeled person. I read a good deal of controlled outrage and fury in this letter. The fact that he isn’t yelling and screaming and pulling his hair out doesn’t mean that he is not showing outrage and fury. In fact, if I were Rowan Williams, this letter from Dr. Radner would be the thing which would scare me the most of all the responses to the ACC debacle.
If there are no consequences built into the Convenant for those who go against it, who cares what it says or who approves it?
The fact that the best intentioned and ordered and studied plan for the Communion was sunk by the ABC and political machinations of the colonial imperialists ought to demonstrate the inability of even the most well intentioned to salvage what was once the Anglican Communion. It is now clearly the “Communion of the Global North Revisionists” and will be nought else ever.
Gracious thanks to all who have made the reality inevitably evident, most especially the ABC and the minions of the Global North in the ACC control unit. This, ladies and gentlemen, IS the Anglican Communion at its “finest” and will only go further downhill from here.
The institution has been handed over for the natural consequences of its obedience to the powers of the age rather than its proper LORD. Judgment has fallen, is falling, and will continue to fall. I say this sadly and with great regret. However, the emperor has no clothes. Jamaica stripped bare the ragged pretence of coverings for the fullest implementation of the Global North agenda for the entire former AC.
[blockquote]It was unhelpful to establish criteria for success or failure for Anglican meetings, Dr Williams told delegates to the May 2-12 meeting in Kingston, Jamaica said, as there was “no absolute measure for achievement.[/blockquote]
This statement explains why both the Covenant and Instruments of unity have been rendered useless by the ABC. He would have starved to death if he was a plumber.
NRA, you said
Look at #4, the idea of “in-principle” acceptance by provinces, dioceses, and non-provincial structures. That is the creation of facts on the ground.
I leave the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACO to God’s judgment and God’s providence. They do not have to acknowledge these “in-principle” endorsements if they do not care to.
But a blitzkreig of “in-principle” endorsements by vestries, standing committees, missionary societies, ECWs, DOKs, EYCs, religious orders, retired priests, retired bishops, nonparochial clergy, and parochial clergy would unify and edify that portion of the Body of Christ known as Anglicanism.
Again, I say that we were thankfully spared from the Covenant being passed and then the TEClub defying it and the JSC ignoring it while prosecuting the GAFCon-ners. It should be clear to all that is what would have happened.
I most definitely disagree with the call to sign on to the dead document. It should be clear to all that the already weak Ridley draft is not going to be strengthened as it is delivered into the hands of its enemies. Of course not. It will be gutted. Rowan Williams’ press conference makes it abundantly clear that he will not use the bully pulpit to even pressure it to be released in its present state.
What happens with the call to sign on to the dead Ridley draft. Some may in a hodge podge fashion, sign on to the Ridley draft. Others, will wait for the final eviscerated Covenant. Others have had enough. The fact on the ground such a result would be that the orthodox are divided further – not a desired outcome!
A much better outcome would be for the non-GAFCon orthodox provinces get together with the GAFCon provinces and write a true covenant that defines a true Communion. (Rowan Williams talking about the [i]possibility[/i] of a federation in the future! What a sad joke. Open your eyes to the present, Rowan.)
The lesson of all of this is so painfully obvious: A [strike]federation wide[/strike] “communion-wide” solution is doomed by the manipulations of Ms Schori.
I have to admit that when I read this I was reminded of Cornelius Fudge in Harry Potter. He is more than in denial that Lord Voldemort has returned. He is actively involved in surpressing any evidence that Voldemort has returned. He goes out of his way to pretend that all is well.
Dr. Radner and the ACI, in all honesty, need to admit that not even the best, most perfect, covenant in the world will see the light of day. They need to address the situation as it is and not as they would like it to be.
Just out of curiosity, robroy, would you be open to “in-principle” acceptance of the first draft of the Covenant, the Nassau draft?
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/report/draft_text.cfm
robroy: I would, most respectfully, disagree with you. I don’t disagree that the RCD Covenant is more-or-less toothless, but I very much agreed with Stephen Noll’s pre-Jamaica take on it. Let me put it this way – if TEC was so prepared to just sign on to the RCD Covenant, then why did they go through such trouble to try to kill it? Why was there such an enraged reaction to the CP move to permit dioceses to sign on to it?
I disagree that TEC would have been willing to sign it. And the reason why not is that to sign on to a Covenant that has ANY accountability section (no matter how wishy-washy), would be for TEC to formally agree that it is not fully autonomous. And that they will NOT do (there are legal reasons, robroy, why they will not do this, I think). All the evidence to date makes me think that TEC was hoping that the GAFCON Provinces would reject the Covenant out of hand (i.e. your reaction, thus eliminating the need of TEC to kill it themselves). But this did not happen – instead (except for Uganda), the GAFCON Provinces seemed to rally behind the RCD Covenant.
This led to Plan B – sabotage the Covenant from within a Communion body (i.e. again, it can’t be seen that TEC itself is rejecting the Covenant, rather the Covenant must be killed in some other way). This plan was going down to failure also, till Rowan Williams intervened. (BTW, I agree with BabyBlue that Rowan Williams is not in league with KJS. I am not sure if this was a blunder on his part or part of a careful plan, but I don’t think he supports the TEC plan to outright kill the Covenant).
I think that if the Global South does as you suggest robroy, they will be playing right into TEC’s hands. And for that reason I disagree with you. Much better to follow Radner’s and the ACI’s suggestion to pass “in principle” acceptances of the RCD Covenant as fast as their constitutions permit. This would put pressure on Rowan Williams to preserve the RCD Covenant draft, and it will force the Western liberals to fight back and alienate more of the Communion.
This is not to say that a GAFCON/Global South/CP/ACI coalition should not pursue a double-track approach and create their own alternative Covenant, in case the official “Anglican Covenant” is killed by TEC (starting work on such an alternate Covenant would further put pressure on Rowan Williams).
Jamesw (#5),
We normally agree on most things, but I’m afraid I can’t agree with you here. While I would concede that there is indeed some quiet, controlled anger that comes through in Dr. Radner’s statement, I stand by my sense that it’s far from expressing the appropriate fury and outrage I think the situation calls for. Obviously, Ephraim is still seeking to avoid burning any bridges behind him. (Whereas, I’m inclined to say, like Cortez, after he landed on the shores of eastern Mexico in 1519, “Burn the ships! There’s no going back now.)”
Our faithful brother in Toronto remains committed to the Covenant, despite the fact that there is no realistic hope whatsoever that it will ever work. No surprise there. But what in the world in this letter would ever make ++RW quake in his boots? I see no threats or ultimatums in Dr. Radner’s statement, not even a veiled one. It’s just not his way.
However, if A. S. Haley is right in his interpretation of Friday’s murky events (and the Curmudgeon may very well be correct in his assessment), the ABoC was in fact left discombobulated and visibly shaken at a crucial, climactic point in those crazy proceedings. But if he came undone, it was by his fears of the wrath of the ruthless PB and the other unscrupulous leaders of TEC and their demonstrated willingness to wield money like a weapon against anyone who gets in their way. Personally, I see no reason why Cantaur should have any fears of the indignation of Dr. Radner or the other members of the CDG that he and the ACC leadership have betrayed.
Anyway, it’s not words that matter anymore. Only actions. The noble ACI leaders can issue all the eloquent, learned, theologically correct statements they like, but it’s ACTIONS, and I mean clear, forceful, consistent actions, that are going to decide the fate of Anglicanism in our time. That’s why I prefer to follow the FCA leaders. They aren’t afraid to take strong, bold actions in defense of the gospel and the apostolic tradition.
But I’m glad you chimed in, James. If you want to clarify why you think this temperate (but vigorous) protest by Dr. Radner might cause ++RW’s heart to quiver and knees to shake, I’d be glad to hear it. I remain skeptical.
David Handy+
#13. I must agree with your last idea. After this latest perfidy by the AC colonial powers, the GS/GAFCON must begin to think of themselves as an alternative Instrument of Communion. After all, the future of Anglicanism rests with them anyway.
The GS/GAFCON provinces ought to vote on the original Covenant, along with any like-minded organizations such as ACNA and TEC dioceses and parishes that wish to ratify it. They can then begin to function in communion based on that covenant.
When the JSC gets around to presenting their “watered down” covenant version to the AC they can be politely declined. The fact that their is a functioning covenant already in-place will make the rest of the AC seem rather impotent.
Now that the AC has a “SENSE” of how TEC operates it is my hope that the GS/GAFCON will adopt a more aggressive posture in moving forward with its agenda and not misplacing its trust on failed Instruments or Communion where the levers of power are so obviously in the control of the colonial powers. GS/GAFCON should play to its strength which is its commanding position as the future of the AC.
James W,
Clearly, the reason for going to the trouble to delay the Covenant was to avoid the embarrassment of having the CP bishops sign on immediately. Now, with the Covenant delayed, the canons can be amended to make it impossible for a diocese to sign, and to depose any bishop who tries. This will give KJS even more leverage over ++Rowan, because she will then hold those 12 or so dioceses hostage.
Jill (#9),
I normally agree with you too, but I can’t agree with your take on Dr. Radner’s position either. The kind of “facts on the ground” that the gifted ACI theologian is suggesting are far from exemplifying the drastic, sweeping, revolutionary change I’m calling for. As always, he is arguing for gradual, incremental change that leaves the wineskins of the AC intact.
Bottom line: SO WHAT if lots of dioceses and parishes, as well as some provinces, “accept in principle” the Ridley Coveant Draft as is?? What good will that really do? It’s woefully inadequate as a means of enforcing discipline, because it still depends on those now discredited Instruments that have failed us so terribly.
In particular, the Covenant relies on the worthless JSC, which is like asking the fox to guard the chickenhouse. I’m sure you remember what happened in New Orleans, Jill, and how the JSC brazenly refused to implement the provisions of the Dar es Salaam accord.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I think it would be a very good thing if lots of provinces, dioceses, and even orthodox parishes were to sign on to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant. Dr. Stephen Noll’s arguments in favor of that before the ACC convened still have some force. It would demonstrate a willingness to submit to a significant level of international accountability, which is certainly a good thing.
But the Covenant remains a woefully inadequate solution to the root problems of Anglicanism in our time. For it leaves the colonial structures of the AC in place and fails to introduce the kind of powers needed to IMPOSE discipline on wayward provinces and COMPEL them to repent and return to the authentic Christian faith and life, or face public shunning, condemnation, and ex-communication. And nothing less than that will do.
At least nothing less than that will satisfy me.
David Handy+
James, the TEClub wanted and has now succeeded in killing the Covenant, but that is not to say they would not have easily manipulated the situation quite easily to their advantage if their machinations had failed. David+ reminds us of the JSC report after Sept 07 HoB meeting. We also have more damningly the subsuming of authority that is totally unjustified which decided the unworthiness of the Ugandan delegate. (Gosh, who put Ms Schori on the JSC?)
Jill, your suggestion (#12) would divide the orthodox even further. We have Ridley draft signatories, Nassau draft signatories, the new and edentulous draft signatories. What a disaster. I think the call to sign on to what ever of these compromises is ill thought out.
What hurt the the CDG efforts is they tried to do the impossible, make a covenant that the TEC would sign on to but would also bind the Communion together. The TEClub and cronies don’t want to be in communion with Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, etc. and vice versa. The two parties are simply immiscible. So the CDG struggled for 2 and half years then failed.
However, gather up the orthodox provinces and you could literally have a covenant in 6 mos time and signed by them in a year. You would have a true (sub)communion with a strong covenant.
robroy, I agree it would be confusing to have several versions of a covenant being accepted “in principle.” It was never my intent to propose that. I was simply trying to elucidate what might entice you and other readers to support the concept of a covenant being accepted “in principle.” This moment, in my mind, represents the closest that the Communion conservatives and the federal conservatives have come to one another in years.
That is not to say that they are at the same place, but goodness, look how close they are! We would be fools to let this moment slip away without exploring it.
Dr. Noll was willing to accept the Ridley draft prior to the ACC meeting. What is there to be lost by accepting the Ridley draft “in principle” after the ACC meeting?
Forget the Archbishop, the JSC, and the ACO, for the time being. Trust that God will open the doors He wants opened and close the ones He wants closed. Trust that God can provide, even when you don’t see how.
This is above my pay grade. The GAFCON guys and the ACI guys ought to pick up the phone, apologize for any pain that they have caused one another, and see if there is some draft that they could agree upon “in principle.” I sincerely believe God would honor their desire to come together as one and make His face to shine upon them.
God gave me this scripture yesterday, before Radner’s article:
Jill, most of the good guys have already said the are in favor “in principle” of a covenant.
[i]”We would be fools to let this moment slip away without exploring it.”[/i] I agree.
[i]The GAFCON guys and the ACI guys ought to pick up the phone, apologize for any pain that they have caused one another, and see if there is some draft that they could agree upon “in principle.â€[/i] I agree.
[i]”I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 1 Corinthians 1:10 “[/i] I better agree! Wonderful.
Again, it is painfully obvious that they TEClub can thwart the Communion wide approach every time. Each of the “instruments of unity” has failed with resultant loss of legitimacy. So quit trying! I agree with Ephraim+ that the Communion is worth saving. Form a true sub-communion in a federation (which the AC is already, get a clue, Rowan) based on a strong Covenant, not one thoroughly compromised. The liberals don’t have time on their hands. The sub-communion will become the Communion.
Sarah Hey is right and Ephraim+ is plain wrong about participation in Rowan Williams games. The presence of ++Drexel Gomez, etc., gave the ACC14 circus a legitimacy which it did not deserve.
BabyBlue has a piece where Ms Schori states that she doesn’t want a repeal of B033 (“That would be too negative”), but rather she wants to affirm that they are free to ordain whomever the spirit calls (whatever evil spirit that might be).
“We would be fools to let this moment slip away without exploring it.†Yes, I agree with Jill and others who urge acceptance of the Covenant, at least “in principle.” I think that Dr. Radner has written well–as well as possible under the circumstances. I certainly can discern the righteous anger throughout his post, and the ABC should be worried that such people see clearly what has happened and are not afraid to tell it. Some of the people on this thread were among the Archbishop’s supporters much longer than others; let Rowan Williams take note that they are no longer blind supporters but are newly energized to oppose the manipulations of the AC “machine.” I number myself among these, for I had not believed that the corruption had gone so far beyond TEC; my eyes have increasingly opened.
Well, the letter certainly offers strong criticism of the ACC meeting, and on one level recognizes the enormous damage that has been done to the communion. It even recognizes the politicization of the process. But then, it fails to recognize who caused this, and why it is important.
One man ran this meeting, notwithstanding the Archbishop’s odd, passive, and ultimately disingenouous remarks following the conference as though he was merely a bystander. The ACI may have its own political reasons for not directly criticizing his actions. And I am not a psychoanalyst – I do not know his motivations. I only know that he was in charge, and I know what the result of the meeting was. It is not of the utmost importance, really, whether it was inadvertence, incompetence, or maliciousness. But he was responsible, and the ACC has been destroyed as an instrument of communion. And I don’t mean as a political unit. I mean as something that holds Anglicans in communion, together. And he has destroyed his own office likewise, and the other remaining instruments. None are left standing as a means for drawing people together.
Yes, there was a “destructive outcome”. It was that any communion between these churches was destroyed, in a very visible way.
So what does the ACI call for?
It would be essential for the communion to hold together. But the flaw in the logic is that there is now no mechanism for doing so – except, of course, GAFCON, the only meeting of Anglicans at this point where the attendees take communion together (except when TEC meets with its puppet provinces) – which, sadly, is still not what the ACI wants to hear.
So it is bemoaned. But who chose this route? These facts on the ground did not occur by themselves. Whether TEC or GAFCON-driven, they were all the result of a failure of the instruments – particularly the Archbishop, to take action. To decline to choose is often to choose. This was all foreseeable.
I agree. Do not think this is going unnoticed by our Orthodox and Roman brethren.
Indeed. There is an anguished cry in that. But let me turn it into a question: should you be doing something different? Consider that the remainder of this letter calls for various ideas as to how to get the covenant back on track. Maybe the CDG can get involved again. But who is looked to: “Furthermore, if the Archbishop of Canterbury were himself to make such an invitation for concrete positive response where desired, parallel to the gathering of other responses, some measure of trust might be restored in this process.”
I must tell you, I do not think this is going to happen. The ACI needs to recognize that its hope does not lie with with Archbishop of Canterbury, at least the current one. I would encourage it to rethink its relationship to GAFCON.
Ultimately, as the ACI seems to perceive, the result of all this internal destruction within the Anglican communion is to leave the orthdox primates to do what they need to do. There is now no instrument left to sanction it; likewise there is no instrument left to oppose it. They will simply move forward. They will even be in communion with one another. Maybe this was the “glorious failure” that someone said this might be.
Some here argue that this is chaos, to which I ask: compared to what?
And having now read the argument that Williams is influenced by Dostoyevsky on babyblueonline, perhaps for GAFCON to be strengthened and take up the reins at this point would be just the appropriate result of all this glorious failure.
We really have only 2 choices- leave for other churches or wait and see what happens. My own prediction is that there will be no covenant at all- whatever commission the ABoC puts together will either a)return it to the JSC in its current form, and the JSC will reject it (since more than 50% of the membership of JSC actively oppose Windsor and everything it stands for, and are in favor of repeal of Lambeth 1.10) OR b) the commission will gut it even further, and it would be pointless to sign, so the provinces representing the 70% of the Communion not represented by the JSC will reject it.
But having said that, Dr. Radner, you are a better, more charitable and more patient Christian than I will ever be. Regardless of my own analysis, I will pray for a better outcome.
However, to have that better outcome, the ABoC will have to recognize that a Covenant acceptable to the GS will be mutually exclusive of a Covenant acceptable to TEC. He MUST choose a way forward.
We’ve been through so much, i can’t recall the deatils. The St Andrew’s draft was submitted to Lambeth conference and the Ridley Cambridge draft to the ACC. Both were returned for revision.
Was the Nassau draft ever submitted to an instrument of Communion and sent back for revision? I know they elicited public comment from the provinces. But was it ever sent to an instrument of Communion? If not, doesn’t that give it more legitimacy than the other two drafts under the concept of conciliarity, because it hasn’t been rejected by an instrument of Communion? Just the musings of a church lady.
#23. pendennis88,
[blockquote]Well, the letter certainly offers strong criticism of the ACC meeting, and on one level recognizes the enormous damage that has been done to the communion. It even recognizes the politicization of the process. But then, it fails to recognize who caused this, and why it is important.[/blockquote]
It is especially unfortunate when a church, be it on the parish, province or AC level becomes dysfunctional. This is because well intentioned loving Christians question their own motivations and reality testing. Christians put up with far too much from church leadership because they think that being critical is being unchristian. The efforts and leadership of the ABC have been unsatisfactory plain and simple. For him to say that this was a “glorious failure” is to combine two words that don’t go together. He tried to “spiritualize” the failed process by reinterpreting the results.
This process reminds me of the abused spouses who keep adjusting the criteria downward for when they will leave her abusing husbands. Unfortunately, for some, they will die because they refused to leave the abusive relationship. This isn’t just a case of a failed process. There are souls at stake here.
I do not see that CofE is the necessary keystone of the Anglican Communion. What happened at Kingston was that yet another delaying technique was instituted for section 4. So nothing can happen until the delaying technique is completed. So…nothing can or will happen.
Those Primates so minded should get together and agree to form an organization called “The Anglican Communion”. They write the constitution, they make the rules. They specify who may and may not be a member and under what conditions. If the ABoC and the CofE want to join, fine. If they meet the requirements of membership.
Oh, I forgot–GAFCON already did that.
Dumb Sheep.