In addition to outlining areas of longer-term work, the Commission committed itself to five immediate tasks:
1. to undertake a reflection on the Instruments of Communion and relationships among them;
2. to make a study of the definition and recognition of ‘Anglican Churches’ and develop guidelines for bishops in the Communion;
3. to provide supporting material to assist in promoting the Anglican Covenant;
4. to draft proposals for guided processes of ”˜reception’ (how developments and agreements are evaluated, and how appropriate insights are brought into the life of the churches);
5. to consider the question of ”˜transitivity’ (how ecumenical agreements in one region or Province may apply in others).
These tasks, which will be taken forward by working groups consulting electronically between meetings, aim to strengthen the unity, faith and order of the Communion.
An Episcopal election in Los Angeles, which remains to be confirmed or rejected by The Episcopal Church, took place during the meeting and was discussed by the Commission. It noted the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury that ”˜the bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold’. The Commission expressed the fervent hope that ”˜gracious restraint’ would be exercised by The Episcopal Church in this instance.
Interesting to see who is on the standing committee who made this call; they come from right across the Communion including Katherine Grieb from TEC.
Dr. Grieb teaches NT at VTS, and was one of the authors of “To Set Our Hope on Christ.” She is an ordained priest, and has an MDiv from VTS, a PhD in Religious Studies from Yale. She also has a JD.
It looks like she’s the only TEC person on this committee.
The membership has strong representation from the Global South, while avoiding the firebrands of GAFCON.
I notice that they report nothing of substance here, other than to stand behind the Archbishop’s response to Los Angeles. Like the Revision Committee, the results are under wraps, with only the JSC to be privy to the results.
I should not complain. If the Roman church is any example, this is simply how Catholic churches operate. On the other hand (my Protestant hand)… I fail to see how release of their findings would be a negative, other than to provide blog fodder for the masses.
It noted the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury that ‘the bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold’.
A period needs to envision an end. By the time of consent, we will have been gracious for 7 years. A jubilee period. Resolution and clarity are needed to move forward. Staying in a holding pattern until every voice in the AC agrees is ridiculous.
The Windsor Report clearly states an end – when the Communion has reached a new consensus.
“The Commission expressed the fervent hope that ‘gracious restraint’ would be exercised by The Episcopal Church in this instance.”
TEC will exercise ‘gracious restraint’ in this matter just a surely as the sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning. And you can take that to the bank!
Brian,
If you want to end the “gracious” (sic) restraint, then first decide that you don’t really care about the Anglican Communion and would rather follow your own way.
People of integrity don’t simply flout the rules (written or otherwise) that they disagree with. They will first disassociate from the organization and then they do as they please. It is disingenious to say that you value the relationships, but that you would rather do your own thing. It like saying to your wife
TEC wants to not have anyone control or have a say in how it lives out its version of the faith. I say we let TEC have its wish.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[b]Gracious restraint[/b]: [translation] TEC double-speak actually meaning [b]churlish self-indulgence[/b].
More meetings, memos, and meaningless drivel…
Barn door, horse, etc.
A few responses (as opposed to reactions).
1. Yes; the membership is interesting and important. To say that it is broadly middle ground might be correct. Yet there are very clear differences as well. For example, I would say that both Grieb and Matthews are in principle theologically in favour of ‘faithful same-sex relationships’. But not yet, institutionally. Matthews for example is on record as saying “timing is incredibly importantâ€; and her voting position in Canada before her move to New Zealand is a classic expression of both principle and timing. Yet Poon would clearly hold the line – all the way down the line – that there is something intrinsically wrong about this approach. For human ontology is at stake: there is something about the [i]imago Dei[/i] that precludes any moves at all in this direction.
2. Yet at root the issue is one of authority. Our current preoccupation with sexual matters, while understandable for a number of reasons, is but a symptom of a far greater concern. Theological method is at stake; and thereafter institutional practice as well as moral praxis. Here the composition of membership starts to look really interesting. For who has what at stake?! Who has the wit and gumption to really engage in cross-cultural analysis and deconstruct their cherished views and respective heritages?! Who has the competence to truly dig deep into the kind of analysis of the Gospel/Culture interface as did the 2nd to 5th C Church?! At this point, we really have a mixed bag – at least, from those whom I can get some kind of a bead on. I personally had more faith in those who gathered around Stephen Sykes when it was called IATDC – even though I recognise the last decade has witnessed [i]TWR[/i] and all that. And that we now have a clear ecumenical horizon as well (which despite the coincidence of the timing of [i]TVR[/i] and ARCIC’s [i]Gift of Authority[/i] was not directly IATDC’s brief even as they were always looking over their shoulders somewhat). So; the jury is well and truly out on this point at this stage – we shall have to see … But perhaps they might have to co-opt some other folk later.
3. Retuning to timing. The current ABC sees Church History not as we view it via CNN and the internet. Rather, time has about it plenty of space and openness, measured more in decades and centuries. At least, that is how I have read him for some 30 years now. [i]The[/i] question might therefore be: is he right about this – even in the 21st C, with its global community and the means of communication? In other words, perhaps there’s something truly novel here for us to “ponderâ€. That is, there’s another key Gospel/culture interface concern that we [b]all[/b] need to come to grips with, integrating how the Lord of the Church has moved in the past and how he is now moving in the present. For such considerations directly bear upon the “listening processâ€, and any aspects of “consensus†and ‘closure’. Again, how competent are these players at grasping this ‘game’. Where’s the likes of Malcolm Muggeridge, who understood deeply the media and who had a deep appreciation of the Faith/culture clash – to the point of leaving USSR and wishing he were dead … Where is the likes of that depth (and he was not even Christian at that stage)?!
4. So may we wish them well, and keep them and their aides – and ‘those who decide’ such membership – in our prayers. For the sake of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, for the sake of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 3:20-21).
Notice the fine list of priors on which this stands! Then ask yourself, “What did ___(any prior commission)___ actually accomplish that affected the Anglican Communion?”
That there was one TEC voice is one too many. TEC should leave the communion in membership in committees/commissions just as surely as it has left the Communion in doctrine, morals, and unilateral actions.
DWS, you are correct. On May 16, 2010, TEC should withdraw from all the instruments of the communion, and also from the Revision Committee if they are on that. But they should maintain their presence on this “Inter-Anglican” committee which is tasked to figure out how to relate with quasi-Anglican entities such as TEC.
You are so right abt that “voice”! And abt how TEC shld “withdraw”
Yet perhaps too we may still be surprised at the way TEC has to go it alone soon – all too soon … For I still live in faith and hope!
Acccording to the Communique:
[blockquote]The Commission has been established by the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council. It builds on the previous work done by the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations, and the Windsor Continuation Group. It reports to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
I can see from [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/commissions/iascufo/index.cfm] a brief note[/url] that IASCUFO was approved by the “Joint Standing Committee†(now called merely “The Standing Committee”) in November 2008. But I have been unable to locate any specific authorization by the ACC, or the Primates, or by the Lambeth Conference.
Can anyone come up with more specific authorization? If not, it looks like the new “Standing Committee” considers that its decisions embody the will of the other three Instruments in establishing a Standing Commission dealing with matters of Anglican ecclesial identity. And guess who gets to appoint all the members of the Standing Commission?
This holy season of Advent perhaps is what caused this report to bring to mind a delightful paraphrase of John 3:16:
[i]”God so loved the world, that he did NOT send a committee!”[/i]
And with regard to Dr. Grieb of VTS, let me add to #1 and #2 that she also served on the Covenant Design Group, along with Dr. Ephraim Radner and others.
David Handy+
#15 Oh, that does sound, um, interesting. I see.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/7/1/ACNS4638
#17 It looks like this commission is pretty much the creation of our erstwhile “powerless” archbishop who has no authority to set communion doctrine but does have authority, apparently, to set up a commission to oversee doctrine.
Curiouser and curioser.
Standard M.O. Brer, but it is all castles in the air.
Yes # 16; it is timely to be reminded that both Grieb and Radner reported back to TEC’s HOB on their respective takes on the Covenant process to date, after the Primates’ Meeting and Communiqué at Dar-es-Salaam. See “Different views of the Anglican Covenant proposal†by our host – which is unfortunately beyond the range of the archive … One portion may be viewed at http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2007/03/a-presentation-to-the-house-of-bishops-on-the-proposed-anglican-covenant/ Unfortunately my own archive only has the text and not the source of Grieb’s portion. Anyone else remember …?!
Let’s remember- TEC is less than 3% of the Anglican Communion, and that only if you accept TEC’s own numbers on total membership. So, if they have 1 rep out of 30, they are overrepresented.
#20 Dr. Grieb’s response to the HOB is archived at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070328153220/http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_83906_ENG_HTM.htm
I recall Dr. Radner also commented on the hostile atmosphere of the HOB meeting. Does anyone have a record of his paper for the March 2007 HOB and/or his recollection of the hostility of the meeting?
Dr. Radner’s report to the March 2007 HOB is archived here
http://web.archive.org/web/20070328013404/http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_83881_ENG_HTM.htm
I have no idea where he commented upon the “atmosphere” of that HOB meeting. If anyone recalls I’d interested to read again what he said about it.
PS. The link in #20 loads in a fraction of the time it takes the link in #23. Any ideas why? Is it symptomatic?!