(Please note that we first covered this upcoming meeting back in March.–KSH)
Bishop [Michael] Nazir-Ali said the manifesto was now “the only game in town” to prevent the fragmentation of the Communion.
“The Covenant has gone, the primates have been unable to gather, Lambeth had a significant number of bishops missing, a large number of leaders from the Global South have resigned from the main Anglican committees ”“ so that causes us all a great deal of concern,” he said.
He added: “The Jerusalem Declaration is not perfect by any means and no doubt can be improved, but at the moment it seems to be the only thing that a large number of people could subscribe to in good conscience.”
“The Jerusalem Declaration is not perfect by any means and no doubt can be improved” — what is wrong with it? By what mechanism will it be improved?
“It seems to be the only thing that a large number of people could subscribe to in good conscience” — before or after the improvements alleged to be in the offing? Obviously only a portion of the GS have signed thus far. Is the point, then, that a ‘doomed covenant’ (so the conclusion here offered) suddenly will trigger new interest in the JD for that reason chiefly? The ‘only game in town’ logic doesn’t sound very compelling.
So perhaps we will need to see the new and improved model and also who creates it and who adopts it.
TEC and other provences will not join a Communion that does not accept the normalization of homosexual sex and other degenerate practices and the GS will not join or remain in a Communion that does. So where is the middle ground? I suggest that there is none and any further attempt to hold the old AC together is a pipe dream.
#2 — do you think that +Nazir-Ali isn’t interested in holding the AC together? What would be the point of the JD?
“TEC and other provences will not join a Communion that does not accept the normalization of homosexual sex” — wouldn’t that be a good outcome for the covenant process?
“the GS will not join or remain in a Communion that does” — well, if the progressives opt not to covenant, the GS would not have “to remain in a Communion with them” by their own decision to stay away.
Oh, he may be interested, but it isn’t going to happen. As for the covenant, Dr. Seitz you and I have had words on this before. Pursue it by all means, I am just indifferent to it.
Nothing said here about the covenant.
I am interested in the questions posed in #1.
As for ‘having words’, no, that does not come to mind.
[blockquote] “The decision by the leaders to hold talks in Britain…” [/blockquote]
Not just in Britain, but in the Diocese of Southwark, the liberal flagship of CofE. I can’t help thinking that is not a coincidence.
[blockquote] “Its timing means that it will provide traditionalists with an opportunity to call for Dr Williams’s successor to be sympathetic to traditionalists.” [/blockquote]
True, although I am pretty sure this meeting was scheduled before Dr Williams’ resignation was known, so that wasn’t its purpose. But the GAFCON Primates are influential in CAPA and the Global South, so any comment they may make is a useful harbinger of the way that those other bodies *may* also think when they next meet.
[blockquote] “The gathering of 200 clergy and laity will be led by Dr Peter Jensen, the Archbishop of Sydney, who is General Secretary of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), the body set up by traditionalists at their 2008 “alternative†Lambeth Conference in Jerusalem.” [/blockquote]
No doubt as secretary ++Jensen played a primary role in organising the meeting. But the last I heard, the meeting will be led by ++Wakabula of Kenya, who is the Chairman of Gafcon. ++Wakabula ordained clergy for work in England last year and he later met ++Williams to discuss the issues arising from it.
Also, re “alternative Lambeth”, this comment from Archbishop Jensen in 2007 presents a somewhat different view:
[blockquote] “The Anglican Future Conference is not designed to take the place of Lambeth. Some people may well choose to go to both [as did in fact happen]. Its aim is to draw Biblical Anglican Christians together for urgent consultation. It is not a consultation which can take place at Lambeth, because Lambeth has a different agenda [or none at all, as events transpired] and far wider guest list. Unlike Lambeth, the Future Conference is not for Bishops alone – the invitations will go to clergy and lay people also. But it is a meeting which accepts the current reality of a Communion in disarray over fundamental issues of the gospel and biblical authority. …†[my comments in square brackets] [/blockquote]
+Kenya is Eliud Wabukala (a Wycliffe College, Toronto alum).
I’m sorry Prof. Seitz. I did the same thing on another thread, and posted an apology once I realised. I missed this one, so thank you for the reminder. I do know his name (and his alma mater!) so I think I must have just had some momentary dislexia.
He is ++Eliud Wabukala, leader of a church of 30 dioceses and (according to its website) 5 million members.
#9 Mr MichaelA, I suspected it was a mis-spelling only. +Wabukala is a Wycliffe grad so his name is fairly well known. Like +Coggin, Webster, O’Donovan. Prayers for this important meeting.