While the statement was released on the same day as General Synod debated the Covenant, the timing of the release was not intended to sway discussion in England, a spokesman told CEN.
The “Oxford Statement” required weeks of refining and was passed from archbishop to archbishop before it was ready for release, a Gafcon secretariat spokesman said.
Sources within the Gafcon movement tell CEN the Oxford Statement should not be read as an outright rejection of the Covenant, but as a vote of no confidence in the current draft that vests authority in the Anglican Communion “Standing Committee”.
On November 1, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali encapsulated the thinking of many of the Gafcon leaders, telling CEN the new Section IV of the Covenant was “quite different” from what had been prepared by the Covenant design team, and “produces a new kind of ecclesial animal” in the Standing Committee. “We have had a spate of resignations” from the Standing Committee “that calls into question its on-going credibility,” he noted. Yet the Standing Committee will “make recommendations” about discipline.
This report by George Conger can also be read here
It is also worth reading in the context of what was said by +Minns, Lord Carey and +Graham Kings here [transcriptions are in the comments below]
It would be good to see the issues raised by +Minns and GAFCON addressed, although I do not necessarily agree that turning into a series of networks is the best which we as a Communion can aspire to. This may have been clarified to some degree in George’s article:
It seems to come down to whether Lambeth Palace are intending to steam ahead trying to get the current draft of the Covenant approved by sufficient provinces, and get sufficient to attend Dublin to give them cover to claim they can just move on to the next ACC meeting. This means ignoring the important points on the covenant text and the constitutionality and makeup of the ‘Standing Committee’ which all the Global South have been making in the ‘Trumpet’ from the Global South Meeting in Singapore, and the Statements of CAPA Primates, the African Bishops’ Meeting, and of course GAFCON Primates.
I am not sure that fills me with any enthusiasm either; the Global South are the majority of the Communion and cannot be just ignored like that without the further marginalisation of Canterbury and Communion Instruments – a very high risk policy of brinkmanship.
I have also been thinking about the Wikileaks disclosures. One of the positive things from that, has been for us in the UK, we have had to look seriously at what the US diplomatic service, one of the best informed in the world is saying. We are having to reflect on what the US and Afghans are saying about our under-resourced participation in Basra and Helmand, in spite of, and perhaps because of the huge sacrifice of our brave young people who have done all that was asked of them.
Similarly we have been made very aware that Iran’s neighbors fear the nuclear arming of Iran and want something done about it; it is not the case as one would suppose from press reports that they are necessarily antagonistic to what the US and UK have done in the Middle East.
Perhaps there is a lesson for us in the Anglican Communion. I do not know all the ins and outs which have led to Lambeth Palace and the ACO taking the decisions which they have, but I do know that they have been manipulative, high-handed and have given alternatively the impression of being frozen in the headlights, and of high handed decision- making.
GAFCON is a case in point. This was the creation of Rowan Williams and the way he dealt with the Global South. In particular the decision to invite all and sundry to the Lambeth Conference ensured massive non-participation and the neutering of that instrument. Since then we have had the strange goings on with the Standing Committee, foisted on provinces without transparent information, and probably most responsible for the disillusionment with the usefulness of the Covenant.
The hopeless and destructive way Williams deals with things has continued with the decision out of the blue and without consultation to invite the consecrator of Mary Glasspool to the Dublin Primates Meeting, unilaterally and without consulting other primates. This high-handedness has probably ensured the collapse of yet another Instrument at the hands of Dr Williams.
More transparency, humility, less manipulation, and bringing in proper consultation and representative governance are the only ways forward for the Communion, but is there any prospect of a change of heart?
PM, love the new “handle”! 🙂
#3 Thanks – I hope it is temporary, but at the moment we do not know what they have done with him or where they are holding him. It has been a week since the Bishop of London took him away in an unmarked car.
Perhaps he is being held in the dungeons and torture chambers of The Old Deanery.
Slightly off topic – who is +Pete whom you wish to be freed? And from what?
#6 Thanks – +Pete is the Bishop of Willesden who has not been seen since last Tuesday. Please pray for him.
#7, Thank you for the reference. Tho one of his priests asserts that it is not against the law to be a republican, perhaps he is resting in the Tower contemplating The Queen’s mercy.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s actions suggest that he has written off the global south. He intends to meet with TEC and the similar-minded in Dublin, and that will be the first tier of the communion.
I take Minns’ remarks not as advocating a network, but recognizing that with the the orthodox in the “communion” relegated by Canterbury to a second tier, they have begun to form a network amongst themselves. Of course, it is already really not one communion anymore other than in name, but two. It is only understandable that the newer communion today would use today’s communication tools and structure, rather than the old colonial forms to which Williams and Kearon are beholden.
Now, I think this is a great mistake on William’s part. The second tier will now contain the Anglican “communion” that is larger and growing. Things are simply spinning apart, and sadly, as near as can be told, that is the Archbishop of Canterbury’s plan, unthoughtful as it may be. The global south are merely gathering what pieces of it they can.
PM, as a matter of real curiosity on my part, cannot the Queen see that the ABC is placing the entire CofE in jeopardy by maintaining a position increasingly far from the center? Larry
Hello Larry. Thanks for your interesting question.
Whatever the Queen sees, she remains discrete, but if you want to listen to, and to read carefully, what she said in one of her rare public speeches to the CofE I would recommend taking careful note of what she said to Synod when opening its session this month here, remembering that the topics she chooses to talk about may tell you as much as what she actually says.
HM is noted as a person of firm Christian conviction who takes her duties as our Supreme Governor very seriously, but it would be unusual for her to give her opinions anything other than privately to the people concerned.
“More transparency, humility, less manipulation, and bringing in proper consultation and representative governance are the only ways forward for the Communion…”
But, think about it–one does not consult when one truly does not want to hear the answer, or change course.
Besides the comments I wrote on the Carey/Minns/Kings thread, I also add that I wouldn’t be surprised that actions like those heretofore are also being taken to keep TEC from being in violation of its own charter. That, here in America, would take the wind out of the sails of many of KJS/TEC’s lawsuits, in the traditionals’ favor. If there’s no disciplinary teeth in that Covenant, AND/OR the fox is left guarding the henhouse, watch TEC’s institutional liberals, and possibly even the radicals, have no problem signing on to the Covenant.
But there will still be more Glasspools and Robinsons, and the march-on of the Liturgical Commission developing the services for the blessings of same-sex partnerships, and Christian “marriages” for same in the American states where that sort of thing is legal.
GAFCON is probably aware of all this and are the courageous few who refuse to turn a blind eye to it, thus they call it what it is.
I do, as I’ve said before, agree that the Covenant is all we’ve got right now, but it leaves a mass-ton to be desired. And do I believe it’s been manipulated to this point for a purpose?
Absolutely YES, I do, and because of all that manipulation and sleight of hand, I DO NOT believe “the agenda” to be “of God”. God is Truth, not games or falsehoods. There are a lot of people in this picture who should also be ashamed of themselves, but that has not stopped them one iota.
My great thanks PM for the link. I have long been a great admirer of the Queen because of her steadiness, her care with language, her firm moderation, her…..what do I want to say? ……her soundness. I am an outsider and have a poor grasp of what she means, but I have always had the feeling that ,if she were struck, she would ring like bronze.
Do you remember her coronation? Was that spectacular? I am a low church sort, dislike bells and smells and that sort of thing, but her coronation took my breath away with its sheer grandeur. Larry
#13 Thanks Larry – I don’t remember the Queen’s Coronation, but my parents do – they were married the same year, but like you probably, I have seen the film footage. I have mixed views about whether I would have liked to be there; it was only 8 years after the end of WWII and the country was still in recovery mode.
If you listen to what the Queen said to Synod, there is no doubt in my mind about her message: You are here to do a job for the church – remaining true to the faith handed down to you and with the mission of spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. Hers is a very practical Christianity, founded on duty and service to others, lived out daily [a million miles away from the airy-fairiness of RW] and following the example of Christ.
I would also say there is also a message to Synod from the passage HM chose from St Paul when talking about how it is to deal with contentious issues:
[blockquote]
The new Synod will have many issues to resolve to ensure that the Church of England remains equipped for the effective pursuit of its mission and ministry. Some will, no doubt, involve difficult, even painful, choices. But Christian history suggests that times of growth and spiritual vigour have often coincided with periods of challenge and testing. What matters is holding firmly to the need to communicate the gospel with joy and conviction in our society.
For at the heart of our faith stand not a preoccupation with our own welfare and comfort but the concepts of service and of sacrifice as shown in the life and teachings of the one who made himself nothing, taking the very form of a servant.
A report to the last Synod concluded with St Paul’s encouragement to the Ephesian church to “… lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.â€
Archbishops and members of the Synod, the five years ahead will not always be straightforward. But I am confident that with the encouragement of these words of St. Paul and the certainty of the love of God, you will find the strength and the vision to work together to succeed. May the Lord’s blessing be on you as you embark on your important deliberations.
[/blockquote]
The passage from St Paul quoted is from Ephesians 4:1-4 and although one cannot be certain exactly which report to Synod she is quoting from, you will find this passage on page 234 at the end of the Rochester Report [Women Bishops in the Church of England: A Report of the House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate] chaired by the then Bishop of Rochester, Dr Nazir-Ali.
Do you think HM is telling Synod to pull their socks up and behave to one another like Christians on this and other issues? Could she be any clearer? That is my reading of what she was telling us in no uncertain terms FWIW.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is [i]exactly[/i] what Her Majesty was telling them.
All the “getting along” is nice, but the issue remains what the expression of the Christian Gospel consists of. For some, women bishops; for some, not, and for some, gay “marriage”, for some, not. The Covenant might define these sorts of things, but then is there penalty for any coloring outside the lines? It all remains to be seen.
You have read it her words more closely than I, but I have not doubt now that your analysis is correct. Would that the synod might listen!
I’m 76, and I remember her coronation on TV. I wish I could have been present. I could see and hear the long ages speaking, the old high language. Larry
#17 I think in ’53 things were fairly drab, goods were in short supply and austerity was the name of the game. But we responded, as we always do, by dusting things off, putting on our glad rags and having a party. Something similar will happen next year for the royal wedding I expect.
And yes, a coronation is a very moving and blessed event.