This is a categorical repudiation of the communion-wide moratorium on the election to the episcopate of anyone living in a same sex partnership. Bishops and dioceses are neither asked nor expected to observe such a moratorium. They are encouraged instead to observe “standards” recognizing same-sex partnerships as reflecting “holy love.” As conceded by today’s letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, some bishops and dioceses will respect the moratorium; others will not. And those that do respect the Communion teaching will do so only because they reject the “guidance” provided by General Convention “standards.”
This explicit recognition that some bishops and dioceses will conform to Communion teaching while others will not requires that the Communion now look to individual dioceses and parishes for communion commitments. The General Convention has decided it cannot speak with one voice in committing to the Communion’s moratoria. The Communion has no choice but to acknowledge those who are ready, willing and able to make these commitments.
From the liveblog of the discussion in committee, it appears as though it was Bishop Parsley who contributed the idea of any of this being “holy”. And he signed the Anaheim statement, don’t you know.
From the liveblog that day:
[blockquote]Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction more latitude in consenting to Episcopal elections. Others, in light of Resolution B033, will not. [/blockquote]
The explanation here is [i]precisely[/i] how and why B033 is repudiated. If it is allowed to be repudiated by some it is effectively repudiated by all. It is shameless to assert otherwise. This is how this sect has crumbled into theological incoherence since at least the days of Pike. How could it possibly be any more clear?
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
This seems to be the ACI’s new drumbeat, but the idea of individual dioceses in TEC being in or out of communion with the AC carries some difficulties. I’m not saying these difficulties are insuperable, but I’d be curious to know the ACI’s take on some of these questions.
Suppose for the sake of argument that around 20 diocesan bishops are considered by the Communion to be in compliance with the Windsor moratoria — I think that’s roughly the number that signed the Anaheim statement. Suppose that when the covenant comes around, they sign on as individual dioceses. In that event:
– Who gets invited to the Primates’ Meetings? The Presiding Bishop of TEC? Or do the “covenant” dioceses have to select one of their bishops to represent them as a Primate? If the latter, what authority would this “Primate” have to speak for them? If the covenant bishops have obligations both to this new “Primate” and to General Convention, doesn’t this become highly problematic in the “no man can serve two masters” sense?
– Who gets invited to ACC meetings? Would the representatives have to be drawn entirely from “covenant” dioceses?
– Would ACNA, CANA, AMiA, etc., consider themselves bound not to plant churches within the territory of “covenant” dioceses? What if such churches already exist when a diocese signs the covenant?
– When the bishop of a “covenant” diocese retires and a new bishop is elected, does the new bishop have to sign the covenant? If he or she doesn’t, is the diocese immediately relegated to the non-Communion status of other TEC dioceses? What if the Standing Committee and the diocesan bishop disagree on signing the covenant?
ACI: “This explicit recognition that some bishops and dioceses will conform to Communion teaching while others will not requires that the Communion now look to individual dioceses and parishes for communion commitments.”
This weekend, as +RDW ponders his response to TEC, he must be (a) considering what options he has that would enable him, if he wished, to provide some recognition of mainstream Anglicans in the USA, (b) considering how he might, if he wished, provide less-than-full recognition to TEC, and (c) considering all of his options within the parameters, both legal and traditional, of his office.
What does ACI have to say to guide us not in further speculating, which we’re all good at, but in knowing a bit more precisely what an archbishop of Canterbury can and might and perhaps should do at this point?
And what might those who have +Rowan’s home phone number be advising him to do now? E.g., Tom Wright.
If one of Cantuar’s chief powers is whom to invite to the decennial Lambeth Conference, then, obviously, that is a power he can’t use now because, conveniently, TEC did what it did one year after Lambeth.
+RDW must know that traditional Anglicans/Episcopalians have been looking for something for an awfully long time now. The direction of TEC is clear; its choices are clear. Does the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion have anything to offer at this point, and what might that be?
Presumably we can all wait till next week, when I would think he’d have to say something, but naturally many of us are curious now.
From the penultimate paragraph of the ACI note:
[blockquote]
… The General Convention has decided it cannot speak with one voice in committing to the Communion’s moratoria. …
[/blockquote]
Yes, but this is a consequence of canons not recently changed. It has been the fact on the ground ever since B033 was passed in GC 2006. (Surely the ACI folk must realize this.) The letter to Anglican leaders is simply explaining the situation in an effort to further their understanding.
Ross (#3),
[blockquote]
– Who gets invited to the Primates’ Meetings? The Presiding Bishop of TEC? Or do the “covenant†dioceses have to select one of their bishops to represent them as a Primate? If the latter, what authority would this “Primate†have to speak for them? If the covenant bishops have obligations both to this new “Primate†and to General Convention, doesn’t this become highly problematic in the “no man can serve two masters†sense?
– Who gets invited to ACC meetings? Would the representatives have to be drawn entirely from “covenant†dioceses?
[/blockquote]
Not only good questions but also good reasons why Anglican Communion officers are likely to be averse to such arrangements prior to any hypothetical (and, in the end, I think unlikely) “removal” of TEC from the Anglican Communion.
Another rather speculative question is whether an eventual alliance of erstwhile Anglican Communion provinces that boycotted Lambeth last year might decide to elect a pontiff.
[blockquote]
… crumbled into theological incoherence since at least the days of Pike …
[/blockquote]
Huh?
Is this about our fuzziness in understanding the Creeds? Are you complaining about our lack of clarity concerning who is seated at the left hand of the Father? Or is it the confusion about whether Christ
is seated or standing to the Father’s right?
Aren’t we at least beyond the controversy over Bishop Pike?
No, you are reading way too much into my post. Basically you can’t have it both ways as I understand Dr. Schori to be saying. IMO the same muddled nonsense has been around for at least 50 years.