Fr. Matt Kennedy of Stand Firm has a very interesting analysis of Bp. John Howe’s proposal. He offers point by point commentary. Here’s an excerpt:
Bishop John Howe’s proposal is not perfect. It would, had the Archbishop of Canterbury been willing call a Primates meeting between now and Lambeth and withdraw Lambeth invitations, be unnecessary. But in light of the Archbishop’s apparent unwillingness to do what his office demands, the only way to preserve Communion unity will be for the House of Bishops to act sacrificially.
Bishop Howe has offered a proposal to the House of Bishops that, if implemented, essentially accomplishes what the orthodox (in general) have been seeking while, at the same time, allowing the revisionists a gracious way to remain true to their theological and ecclesial convictions. There is, as Bishop Howe suggests, pain enough for all, but the brilliance of the proposal is that it does not require the sacrifice of core principles.
The proposal incorporates 8 points. Each point is listed below followed by a brief comment.
”1) Put the Resolution of the “Windsor Bishops” to a vote. It calls for full compliance with the requests of the Primates in their Communique from Tanzania last February.”
The resolution of the Windsor Bishops is best articulated in the MacPherson resolutions and as Bishop Howe notes, they are wholly consistent with the Dar Es Salaam (DES) Communique. This first step, voting on the MacPherson resolutions, is crucial because it, rightly, sets up the DES Communique as the criterion by which bishops identify themselves as Windsor or non-Windsor bishops. The DES Communique asks for honesty from the American church. Are we willing to abide both by the spirit and the letter of present Communion standards?
2) Those who cannot, for conscience’ sake, abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion (Lambeth I:10) will then voluntarily withdraw (at least temporarily) from the official councils of the Communion (as per Professor Katherine Grieb’s much appreciated proposal to us in March at Camp Allen )
.
This second step circumvents one of the more intractable difficulties in our current debate. Revisionists argue that the unique polity of the Episcopal Church does not allow bishops to make the decisions that the DES asks them to make and, further, that the DES requests themselves reveal a deep misunderstanding of not only the American church, but the provincial autonomy at the heart of the Anglican Communion structure. But this proposal calls for a self-sacrificial voluntary removal for the sake of Christian charity rather than forced submission to what revisionists see as coercive demands. At the same time, for the orthodox, this voluntary removal provides the necessary space and distinction between false teaching and true, heresy and orthodoxy called for in the scriptures.
Matt+, I think the problems with +Howe’s proposal were well summed up by Nadine Kwong in this comment on the T19 thread on the subject. Basically, this proposal offers reasserters everything they want, while offering reappraisers nothing but immediate second-class status and the promise of expulsion a few years down the road.
Nadine has offered a more intricate, but IMO very interesting proposal of her own, here. I would be interested to know your thoughts on it.
Matt+ states at the outset: “the only way to preserve Communion unity will be for the House of Bishops to act sacrificially.” Given the history of the past 4 years and more I see absolutely NO grounds for viewing this possiblilty as even remotely possible. This gig in New Orleans is up, time to turn our attention to how the Common Cause Partners and the wider set of Global South Primates will respond to the farce in New Orleans.