The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter, which may be read in it’s entirety on the ACNS website or at Titus 1.9 should be read not simply to extract the actions “proposed” against Provinces which defy the moratoria.
The letter is a pained, even anguished reflection from an “elder brother” to a family, a family whose identity and behavior is sharply at odds with its calling and profession. The Archbishop magnifies our common identity in terms of the mission of the Church, brought to life on the Day of Pentecost. It is no accident that Pentecost is immediately followed by the Feast of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the source and pattern of unity in community and community in unity.
Not a bad review of the letter. But it is surely not a critique, which I think should begin at this point:
[blockquote] The Archbishop clearly sets before us a pattern of inappropriate behavior which goes beyond the matter of human sexuality and includes cross-border interventions, dioceses working out of step with their provinces and by implication the actions of individual bishops and other clergy whose activities are divisive and beyond the authority committed to them. While being careful not to draw “moral equivalents†to various inappropriate activities and actions, the Archbishop reminds us that all know which moratorium are clearly identified, and thus breaches of them invite consequences. Again the Archbishop speaks as a pastor when he reminds the Communion that actions have consequences and that discipline in Christian terms is not intended to damn or even embarrass, but to invite repentance and reconciliation. [/blockquote]
Anyone who has followed this crisis as it has come to a head over the last decade will know that in fact various instruments of the communion have consistently looked to TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada to repent, prior to any moratoria. As well, history proves that cross border incursions were primarily a result of the lack of teeth behind any of these requests by the instruments, and were designed, not to divide, but to rescue many from what has proved to be nearly tyrannical behaviour on the part of many bishops in North America towards congregations and priests the Lord has given them to serve. Furthermore, the ABC consciously chose not to deal then with our crisis the way he is now, practically creating GAFCON himself through his lack of action. And NOW he does this?
I have said elsewhere that the Lord’s providential hand is very well at work here, even in the ABC. But that does not excuse his lack of leadership during his tenure. The letter looks to me like he is simply being forced to do something now after the actions of TEC’s last general convention, and the Glasspool consecration, but he is still unwilling to lay blame where it belongs, and so spreads his rebuke to those who have upheld their vows – namely the believing primates and bishops, particularly of Africa, who have done exactly as they should have, in the Lord.
I for one have not forgotten how we arrived at this current crisis, nor have I forgotten how little the ABC has done to remedy it.
Well, and to say that the Archbishop has drawn “a consistent application of resistance to those who breach the moratoria identified in the Windsor Report, and by the Primates and the Joint Standing Committee of the Communion and by himself as primus inter pares” is to steal a base, in American parlance. The moratoria on border crossing can easily be searched for and read, and allowed border crossing where initiated by the orthodox parish, allowed to continue until adequate alternative oversight were established, and all manner of provisos that the ABC now seems to want to deny – even though it was the ABC’s decision not to put things like the pastoral council called for by the primates into effect (Dar es Salaam, anyone?) that are the very reason border crossing remained. Not to mention the fourth moratorium on litigation, which I suppose TEC instructed him to reconsider.
[1] I agree. I think it does little good to neglect the various qualifications under which the primates effected the recommendations of the Windsor Report. The ABC is not returning to an agreed reference state – it would be incorrect to suggest that moratoria were generally accepted without qualification, or somehow effected in this way by a deliberative instrument of the communion.
IMHO, this is a repeat repudiation of the primates’ meeting and the Dromantine and DES Communiqués.
Of course, according to generally accepted rules of order, recommendations within a report must be acted on by the deliberative body receiving the report in order for the recommendations to take effect. The WR recommendations were acted on by the primates in the form of their communiqués.
The ABC has acted outside the scope of generally accepted rules of order in the past. One would hope that with the easy availability of the communiqu̩s Рothers might pick up on this.
I can’t imagine why the ABC might believe that the primates would forget or ignore these past qualifications – even if they are otherwise disposed to support an unqualified moratorium against cross border oversight.
I do not agree with sentiments, however prevalent they may be among this audience with whom I consider myself a part, that the ABC has done little to remedy the crisis in the communion. I am not displeased with his leadership in the least bit, knowing that righting such a massive vessel as the Anglican Communion takes a great deal of time and care. There are many of us still in TEC, both diocese and parishes, who desire to retain unity with the global communion and honor the integrity of our canonical structures. I consider the ABC’s course of action thus far to have demonstrated awareness of our predicament and that he has, as much as possible, worked within his powers and ability to hold together this fragile experiment we call Anglicanism.
It could perhaps be said that the ABC has not taken “drastic” action against the agitations that have imperiled communion. (Thanks be to God.) But he has certainly not ignored the crisis. His statements and work on the covenant process give every indication that he is working hard to repair our communion. I lend my prayers to his effort and hope that others join me in doing so.
just look at Lambeth 08 invitations…..it has been clear for years (even from 03) that the ABC would be a stumbling block to any meaningful discpipline on TEC……and now he broadens the issue to help TEC but doesn’t seemto understand that the largest Anglican provinces have moved on……..thanks to his Lambeth 08 invitations initiating GAFCON, actually!
The matter of border crossings must be considered in proper context. The panel of reference was supposed to deal with the matter of orthodox parishes stranded in TEC. The fact that it was never brought into being lies with the ABC. He must accept responsiblity for this fracmenting of the AC. I agree with Fr Claver’s description of the letter as anquished, but it is of +++Rowan’s own making.
[blockquote]I am not displeased with his leadership in the least bit, knowing that righting such a massive vessel as the Anglican Communion takes a great deal of time and care.[/blockquote]
Jerod, perhaps the Titanic also sits upright, on the ocean floor. It does little good to right the vessel if one does, as does Rowan (apt name for the nautical metaphor), nothing to stop the huge leaks letting water into the hold, scolds and subverts those who are trying to plug the leaks, and encourages people to attack the hull with auger bits.
If htere had been by the ABC “a consistent application of resistance to those who breach the moratoria identified in the Windsor Report, and by the Primates and the Joint Standing Committee of the Communion and by himself as primus inter pares” instead of the skulduggery exercised to maintain EcUSA/TEc in the “Communion” it alleges it belongs to by words and rips to ‘shreds and patches’ in deeds, there would be no need for this allegedly painful bleat from Rowan. He has brought it own himself by not shepherding nor abiding by the Primates Committee, the Windsor Report, or the newly colonialist-reorganized alleged JSC. Reaping what he has sown and then complaining about it is the least of his problems.
The Anglican Communion described as a “massive vessel” boggles the mind. And what does this “massive vessel” carry?
Numer 1, my intent was not to write a critique but to “translate” the archbishop’s letter into a language “understanded of the people”. A critique will wait until we see whether the other Instruments, who share with Canterbury authority in more crucial areas will have the courage to apply the letter to more crucial agencies such as the ACC, the Standing Committee, the Primates’ Meeting and eventually Lambeth. The Archbishop has said clearly that he has no authority to do this by himself. He has kicked the ball into the court of those who share that authority. Whether he could have done so at some stage since 2003 is neither here nor there. Such speculation gets us nowhere.
+Rowan is right to remain within his own competence, and to challenge the other Instruments to exercise their patronage.
However I see here the beginnings of a two track Communion. I think it right to adopt measures which retain ties between the various “parties” simply because I don’t think that anything is static, that times change, and we must leave room for God to do His work and effect His will. Schism obstructs such a process, and often creates bodies stuck in a controversy which evaporates, kept alive by an archeological fixation on the hurts of a “moment” in history.