Mike’s concise but thorough analysis of the outcome of GC06 is a very good assignment for review in the “how we got here” bucket. Moving very slightly further back, as a reminder of the incredible degree of cynicism, dissimulation, and obscurantism in the leadership of TEC preparing for the General Convention, [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20060614wright.cfm?doc=117]+Durham’s article[/url] commenting on the Commission’s proposed resolutions, published shortly before the GC.
[blockquote]The benchmark against which the key resolutions must be measured is of course Windsor 134 (for Resolutions A160 and A161) and Windsor 144 (for A162). The report quotes the preamble to Windsor 134 (see (5) above), but never quotes the recommendations themselves. The reason for this, sadly, becomes all too clear: the Commission clearly had the Windsor Report before it throughout, and decided to decline Windsor’s request and to do something else instead, using some words and phrases which echo those of Windsor while not affirming the substance that was asked for. [b]This, with real sadness, is my basic conclusion: that unless the relevant Resolutions are amended so that they clearly state what Windsor clearly requested, the rest of the Communion is bound to conclude that ECUSA has specifically chosen not to comply with Windsor.[/b] [/blockquote]
(emphasis in original)
Note that this refers to the Resolutions as proposed, not as passed, and even these proposals went too far for the majority in the HoD.
[blockquote]The Commission, in their ‘explanation’ of Resolution A160, says that this Resolution ‘addresses the invitation of the Windsor Report that “the Episcopal Church be invited to express regret” for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection. It does not point out (and at this point, reading and re-reading what they wrote, I have to say with sadness that the word ‘duplicity’ comes unbidden to my mind) that while this Resolution does indeed address the invitation of the Windsor Report, what it basically says to this invitation is ‘No, thank you.’
… Resolution A161 says [b]’we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.’ [/b]At the risk of stating the obvious, this Resolution has done two things, both of which point away from Windsor: (a) it has only recommended ‘very considerable caution’, rather than a moratorium; (b) it has broadened the reference to persons in same-gender unions into a general statement about persons whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church – which, as various commentators have pointed out, and as the ‘explanation’ offered by the Commission itself indicates, could mean all sorts of things. Again, therefore, if Resolution A161 is passed without amendment, and still more if it is not even passed, it will be impossible to draw any other conclusion but that ECUSA has chosen not to comply with the Windsor recommendations. [/blockquote]
A161 did not pass, of course; B033 — a weaker version yet — was forced through both Houses with heavy-handed arm twisting (to mix metaphors) by TEC’s leadership.
[blockquote]… if the resolutions are not amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way ahead might then be found, the rest of the Communion will have to conclude that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor; has decided, in other words, to ‘walk apart’ (Windsor 157).[/blockquote]
Thus the ABC’s friend and colleague +NT Wright, even before the disgraceful performance at GC06, knew that TEC was deciding to “walk apart,” and even used the word “duplicity” to describe TEC’s response.
Mike’s concise but thorough analysis of the outcome of GC06 is a very good assignment for review in the “how we got here” bucket. Moving very slightly further back, as a reminder of the incredible degree of cynicism, dissimulation, and obscurantism in the leadership of TEC preparing for the General Convention, [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20060614wright.cfm?doc=117]+Durham’s article[/url] commenting on the Commission’s proposed resolutions, published shortly before the GC.
[blockquote]The benchmark against which the key resolutions must be measured is of course Windsor 134 (for Resolutions A160 and A161) and Windsor 144 (for A162). The report quotes the preamble to Windsor 134 (see (5) above), but never quotes the recommendations themselves. The reason for this, sadly, becomes all too clear: the Commission clearly had the Windsor Report before it throughout, and decided to decline Windsor’s request and to do something else instead, using some words and phrases which echo those of Windsor while not affirming the substance that was asked for. [b]This, with real sadness, is my basic conclusion: that unless the relevant Resolutions are amended so that they clearly state what Windsor clearly requested, the rest of the Communion is bound to conclude that ECUSA has specifically chosen not to comply with Windsor.[/b] [/blockquote]
(emphasis in original)
Note that this refers to the Resolutions as proposed, not as passed, and even these proposals went too far for the majority in the HoD.
[blockquote]The Commission, in their ‘explanation’ of Resolution A160, says that this Resolution ‘addresses the invitation of the Windsor Report that “the Episcopal Church be invited to express regret” for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection. It does not point out (and at this point, reading and re-reading what they wrote, I have to say with sadness that the word ‘duplicity’ comes unbidden to my mind) that while this Resolution does indeed address the invitation of the Windsor Report, what it basically says to this invitation is ‘No, thank you.’
… Resolution A161 says [b]’we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.’ [/b]At the risk of stating the obvious, this Resolution has done two things, both of which point away from Windsor: (a) it has only recommended ‘very considerable caution’, rather than a moratorium; (b) it has broadened the reference to persons in same-gender unions into a general statement about persons whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church – which, as various commentators have pointed out, and as the ‘explanation’ offered by the Commission itself indicates, could mean all sorts of things. Again, therefore, if Resolution A161 is passed without amendment, and still more if it is not even passed, it will be impossible to draw any other conclusion but that ECUSA has chosen not to comply with the Windsor recommendations. [/blockquote]
A161 did not pass, of course; B033 — a weaker version yet — was forced through both Houses with heavy-handed arm twisting (to mix metaphors) by TEC’s leadership.
[blockquote]… if the resolutions are not amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way ahead might then be found, the rest of the Communion will have to conclude that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor; has decided, in other words, to ‘walk apart’ (Windsor 157).[/blockquote]
Thus the ABC’s friend and colleague +NT Wright, even before the disgraceful performance at GC06, knew that TEC was deciding to “walk apart,” and even used the word “duplicity” to describe TEC’s response.