About what situations is the Archbishop here concerned? The context of the proposal ”“ ”˜unanswered questions’ with respect to NOLA ”“ indicates that the main issue is TEC’s (and perhaps other churches’) relationship with the Communion: how far does her claim as ”˜Anglican’ go when in fact her teaching and practice have clearly departed from the Communion’s? However, the mention of Windsor’s recommendations and extra-jurisdictionally ordained bishops, also indicates that the Archbishop is aware that various responses to TEC’s clear departure from Communion teaching and practice has also obscured the character of Anglican identity more broadly and of common authority. These issues must also be addressed, rather than allowed to further dissipate a common mind. The Archbishop recognises ”˜much unclarity’ over ”˜who speaks for the Communion?’ and says this needs resolution ”˜urgently’: ”˜the people of the Communion need to be sure that they are not placed in unsustainable and damaging positions by any vagueness as to what the Communion as a whole believes and endorses, and so the issue of who represents the Communion cannot be evaded”¦Not everyone carrying the name of Anglican can claim to speak authentically for the identity we share as a global fellowship’.
This last concern, which is surely a weighty one, faces into the current dissolution of the Communion’s ”˜common voice’ through a host of unilateral decisions that clearly affect teaching and discipline both. Not only are churches like TEC and certain bishops and dioceses in Canada knowingly moving ahead with innovations that run counter to everything that Anglicans have together articulated and decided, but in doing so they are wittingly undercutting the very notion of common identity, character, authority, mission, and concern. Those responding to these actions have, in their turn, if with a certain reactionary rationale, ended up moving forward in ways that do not represent common decision-making within the Communion and that may, in fact, further the dismantling of Anglican identity. To pursue such destructive innovations unilaterally, and still call oneself ”˜Anglican’ has put into question the very notion of Anglicanism itself as a divinely called church within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church into which we are called to grow with other Christians.
The group that the Archbishop proposes offer recommendations about this challenge, as it affects several churches and the Communion as a whole (including how Lambeth Conference may operate) cannot be some judicial tribunal. Nor, however, can it be a repeat of the Panel of Reference that, despite careful work, has been unable to direct any major conflicts it has examined towards fruitful resolution. It appears that the Archbishops himself, given his own role as the articulator of the Communion’s mind, and gatherer of her chief pastors, has accepted his role as moral leader for the Communion especially in this time of crisis. He will, again, seek to bring concrete recommendations before the council of Anglicanism’s bishops for the sake of the Communion’s common ordering. This is yet another indication that the Archbishop has decided that the Lambeth Conference must be a truly conciliar decision-making body for the Communion.
You mean he is going to have to cancel the Jamboree? and the Bishops will have work to do
instead?
Well, at least they’ll still have tea with the Queen to look forward to.
I found this very helpful, but I was puzzled by this part:
This suggests that ACI sees Abp. Williams as viewing San Joaquin, Ft. Worth and Pittsburgh, on the one hand, and AMIA and CANA, on the other hand, as having the same status. I thought the letter drew a rather precise distinction between the two groups. Perhaps the authors or someone who understands this better than I do could clarify this point.
I think the summary is very good, although for a summary it seems as long as the ABC’s original!
Having said that, one question I have is this. If it is the case that the ABC believes that, “new structures under non-American and TEC jurisdictions … do not lie at the level of ‘faith and practice,’ but rather at the level of ecclesial prudence and constructiveness,” then on what basis is he excluding any bishop, including, dare I say, Gene Robinson, from an invite to Lambeth?
It seems to me that an invitation to Lambeth is based, from the ACI summary of the ABC’s letter, on whether the bishop in question has been consecrated with an eye for ecclesial prudence and constructiveness, rather than if that consecration is lawful at the level of faith and practice.
Clearly, if a given bishop is a bishop in God’s Church, lawfully consecrated by one of the recognized members of the Anglican communion, then said bishop should get an invitation to Lambeth, plain and simple. And if Lambeth is so critical to discerning the mind of the communion on such weighty matters, I suspect everyone who is a bishop should invited, including the one who should not be a bishop, and who will at this point remain nameless.
To clarify my above comment’s first paragraph, it should read:
Having said that, one question I have is this. If it is the case that the ABC believes that problems with “new structures under non-American and TEC jurisdictions … do not lie at the level of ‘faith and practice,’ but rather at the level of ecclesial prudence and constructiveness,†then on what basis is he excluding any bishop, including, dare I say, Gene Robinson, from an invite to Lambeth?
He is correct that: “If this is not the case, the Archbishop does not in fact take the lead in this quickly, the proposal is surely open to dismissal.”
Sounds to me like Rowan is not only scolding TEC for shooting its anglican partners but is also scolding the shot and bleeding partners for running away. Why can’t this dude make a DECISION based on tradition, reason and SCRIPTURE?
Waffles anyone?
I offer a simpler analysis: I am done with TEC (as is my pastor, and the rest of the congregation.) We’re done now, making it official soon. There is nothing left for us to wait for or discuss. Alternative jurisdictions, here we come.
The instruments of communion will eventually do only one of two things that I now care about: (1) Recognize the alternate jurisdictions as fully Anglican, in which case I will be happy to remain in the Communion. (2) Fail to recognize the alternate jurisdictions out of deference to TEC, in which case it will be a Communion in which I do not care to participate. There is a 3rd option which I think is improbable: Refuse to recognize either TEC or the alternate jurisdictions; in that case I’m no longer fully Anglican whether I stay in TEC or not, so it’s moot.
Not to sound overly dismissive, but wake me when something actually happens among the instruments; meanwhile, we’ll be building the Kingdom, by God’s grace.
(I do not say this to criticize the Archbishop personally, it’s just the place we’ve come to. Besides President of the United States following 9/11/2001, my least-favorite job would be Archbishop of Canterbury after GC2003.)
This “summary” has 4977 words. The original Advent letter had 4367 words.
So once again we sift through the highly nuanced language, scratching our heads, and look for words that reassure us. This complicated, jumbled sentence or that one means this time he won’t pull the ball away, yet again. If we have these “final” set of meetings, Lambeth and the facilitated conversations, then there will be consequences for tearing of the communion.
Truly, we are insane.
ABp Orombi stated that the HoB was coached on what to say. I truly wonder whether the writers of the JSC report actually had written large parts of the report even before the HoB meeting ended. The report appeared suddenly and was rushed out. The whole thing stinks. Fully 1/3 of the primates and 2/3’s of the ACC did not participate in the sham.
The ABC stated that the invitation process take into account the input of the primates. He stated that the evaluation of the HoB response would be by the primates. There is only one meeting that needs to take place, a meeting of the primates, where both of these can happen.
#7: What parish is this? Larry
A small one that doesn’t really matter in the big picture, except in the Father’s eyes. No dramatic, glamorous, earth-shaking departure here. 🙂
I’m sorry, but I read (and write) engineering documents all day, every day and I couldn’t force myself to read all of this turgid missive. Would it be possible to write a 500-word executive summary so we don’t have to re-read ++Rowan’s letter shuffled amongst the rephrasing of same?