And in the Communion? There is an undoubted good in the independence of local provinces, and there is an undoubted good in the fact that some provinces are increasingly patient, compassionate and thankful in respect of the experience and ministry of gay and lesbian people ”“ entirely in accord with what the Lambeth Conferences and Primates’ statements have said. But when the affirmation of that good takes the form of pre-empting the discernment of the wider Anglican (and a lot of the non-Anglican) fellowship, and of acting in ways that negate the general understanding of the limits set by Bible and tradition, there is a conflict with another undoubted good, which is the capacity of the Anglican family to affirm and support one another in diverse contexts. The freedom claimed, for example, by the Episcopal Church to ordain a partnered homosexual bishop is, simply as a matter of fact, something that has a devastating impact on the freedom of, say, the Malaysian Christian to proclaim the faith without being cast as an enemy of public morality and risking both credibility and personal safety. It hardly needs to be added that the freedom that might be claimed by an African Anglican to support anti-gay legislation likewise has a serious impact on the credibility of the gospel in our setting.
And in the Communion we have no supreme executive to make the decisions that might settle how the balance of freedom might be worked out. The Anglican Covenant has been attacked in some quarters for trying to create an executive power and for seeking to create means of exclusion. This is wholly mistaken. There is no supreme court envisaged, and the constitutional liberties of each province are explicitly safeguarded. But the difficult issue that we cannot simply ignore is this. Certain decisions made by some provinces impact so heavily on the conscience and mission of others that fellowship is strained or shattered and trust destroyed. The present effect of this is chaos ”“ local schisms, outside interventions, all the unedifying stuff you will be hearing about (from both sides) in the debate on Lorna Ashworth’s motion. So what are the vehicles for sharing perspectives, communicating protest, yes, even, negotiating distance or separation, that might spare us a worsening of the situation and the further reduction of Christian relationship to vicious polemic and stony-faced litigation? As I have said before, it may be that the Covenant creates a situation in which there are different levels of relationship between those claiming the name of Anglican. I don’t at all want or relish this, but suspect that, without a major change of heart all round, it may be an unavoidable aspect of limiting the damage we are already doing to ourselves. I make no apology, though, for pleading that we try, through the Covenant, to discover an ecclesial fellowship in which we trust each other to act for our good ”“ an essential feature of anything that might be called a theology of the Body of Christ.
Interesting analysis but is there any real leadership.
Glendermott
Church of the Word
Rowan Williams has come out against the Ugandan bill. [url=http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/858926/-/wi1k07/-/ ]ABp Orombi has too[/url].
“I predict a strongly worded call for more time to form a commission to give a report in 2200 and the need to let conciliarism triumph over ideology because there is more than one value system by which things may be measured, or some such. “Forceful intervention†and “Archbishop Williams†are, by historical precedent, not logically related by a verb.”
Anyone can send me my prophet decoder ring if they have the boxtops to do so. I bet it’ll tell me to Drink more Ovaltine. Just like the ABC – except it’s Kool-Aid from EcUSA.
#3. dwstroudmd,
While you are repeating what you said on another thread, it bears repeating. the Gettysburg Address was about 250 words. Mighty Mouse, he is not.
+Cantaur opines: “And in the Communion we have no supreme executive to make the decisions that might settle how the balance of freedom might be worked out.” A classic example of his obfuscation. No, in the Anglican tradition we DO have ways of working this out. Primarily, we are a concillior church. The hallmark and one of the greatest contributions of Anglican Christianity over nearly 500 years has been its reassertion of the concillior principle in the Western Church. Furthermore, the councils of our Communion have spoken over, and over, and over again with tremendous clarity on this issue. No, the problem is not that we don’t have ways of making these decisions, the problem is that our leaders, chiefly among them the Archbishop of Canterbury, won’t honor and uphold those decisions of the wider Communion. There is NOTHING to suggest that he will do any better with a Covenant. The whole project of the Covenant has been an exercise in futility. It’s prime purpose has been to delay and ultimately avoid upholding the concillior principle. In this the ABC has betrayed the Communion (and so much more!).
5. Chris Taylor,
I agree with you but doesn’t it grieve you to have to say these things?
I find myself starting a comment and deleting it. I am so angry. Maybe there should be a petition for the ABC to step down.
Dcn Dale at #6, agreed.
Chris Taylor at #5, agreed. The great church leaders impose their will on a situation through force of will, integrity and leadership – this calls for a Hosius, a Gregory the Great, a Thomas Cranmer.
+++Williams’ inability to exercise effective leadership in a conciliar situation leaves little confidence that he would do any better if he had the powers of a pontiff.
“Forceful intervention”, ahem. Thank you (Archbishop) Capt Obvious for restating yet again the facts of which everyone is already painfully aware. A little more terseness and editing would have been good, but the use of words is indeed elegant. But, um, shouldn’t there have been a way forward in there somewhere?
The ABC is in a moral fog. His “balancing of liberties” approach to moral issues may have some applicability to civil legislation in a pluralistic society, but the Church is not identical with the civil society. Cannot the Church, for itself, speak authoritatively on the morality of same-sex acts? For the ABC it seems to be a balancing act between competing goods. For instance, the ABC suggests that the Church must balance the freedom of LBGT persons against the difficulties the Church in Malyasia has as a result of being cast as an enemy of public morality in their cultural context. In other words, if the church in Malayasia was not suffering persecution because of the Anglican promotion of homosexuality then the balancing of liberties in the AC would fall in favor of the promoters of homosexuality. This is moral relativism.
The ABC desperately needs to read or re-read “Veritatis Splendor”. The whole point about seeing in “three-dimensions” is to see clearly. The Church, ever ancient, ever new, is that which sees in three-dimensions. For the ABC, seeing in three-dimensions does result in clarity, but a balancing or compromising of competing views.
It took him 4,000 words to say: “Why can’t we all get along?” and “Let’s continue the listening process!”