The problem, at this point, is a lack of clarity as to what Dr Williams means and intends. It would be remarkable, given what else he says in this letter, if he then sought to treat TEC and the Global South with strict parity, on the one hand with regard to reinterpreting Scripture and on the other hand with regard to cross-border interventions: remarkable because the former has precipitated the crisis and the latter has responded to it. Nevertheless, a certain doubt remains.
Despite this, however, there is some reason to be positive. Dr Williams has acknowledged that the Anglican Communion must have boundaries. Moreover, in identifying these he has rightly put Scripture first, and has insisted that a novel reading of Scripture cannot simply be imposed by one group in the Church as acceptable over against the wider reading and the longer tradition.
Most importantly, he affirms that the reading of Scripture currently adopted by TEC and others (if it is a ”˜reading’ at all), renders its recognition as Anglican (and therefore traditionally Christian) problematic, to say the least.
More questionable is his attempt to finesse the continuing acceptance of TEC by the rest of the Anglican Communion by an appeal to the fact that some elements within TEC want to distance themselves from it!
Most difficult of all, however, is his attempt to isolate into watertight compartments the three elements of his boundaries: Scripture, ministry and mission. Indeed, his presenting the boundaries in that order is also problematic, for mission is, in the end, surely more important than the formal nature of our ministries.
It is precisely here that the decisions and actions of TEC most clearly confront Dr Williams’ analysis. As Dr Bonnie Perry, partnered gay clergywoman, Rector of All Saints Church, Chicago, and candidate for the episcopate of California has said recently, ”˜Some people call it the gay agenda, but we call it the Gospel Agenda.’ It cannot be argued, in the present circumstances, that although TEC’s reading of Scripture may be defective, its mission is intact. Nor can it be suggested that because its ministry contains some who are faithful to the Communion’s understanding of Scripture, the province is thereby faithful to the Communion’s notion of ”˜church’.
Yet for all this, Dr Williams must be commended for giving a lead ”” for stepping up to the plate when it was needed. We may (indeed, I do) disagree with some of what he has said. But we need not (and I do not) disagree with it all, even though considerable anxieties may remain.
With respect, I think that the ABC is crystal clear. He intends to hold the AC together and he can only do that by preventing resolution. If a decision is made to either discipline or not to discipline TEC then the AC will split. The ABC must keep the conversation going as long as possible without resolution.
The TEC must continue to believe that they can stay in the AC without discipline and the orthodox must continue to believe that one day the TEC will be disciplined. As long as this question is not resolved the AC will continue.
#1, your explanation connects the dots quite nicely.
On the other hand, I found Richardson+’s presentation of “the dots” quite good, wrt the situation visa vis ecusa. The question I’d raise, as I have only minor quibbles over his analysis of what the AoC meant concerning Communion-Global South-ecusa+Canada relations, was why Richardson didn’t address the same issues as they are presenting themselves in the UK’s provinces? The same issues can hardly be considered solved. Mitigating that question is the fact that the presented analysis is already long and very detailed. Going on to the UK case would probably double it.
Lambeth cannot force a decision. It can only pass a resolution at most, one which it cannot enforce. All it can do is enable the ABC to keep the conversation going without decision. The Global South must attend because that keeps the conversation going, but without decision. The AC only survivives because no decision can be had. The ABC wants it this way because the AC cannot collapse on his watch.
As far as the next ABC is concerned, well that is his problem.
“It cannot be argued, in the present circumstances, that although TEC’s reading of Scripture may be defective, its mission is intact. Nor can it be suggested that because its ministry contains some who are faithful to the Communion’s understanding of Scripture, the province is thereby faithful to the Communion’s notion of ‘church’.”
This is a very important statement. Obviously it needs a rather formidable justification. It seems to suggest that the authenticity of a Province is to be established by reference to its policies, in the same way as a political party is judged by its platform. However does a defective interpretation of the Faith promulgated by a Synod annul the doctrine, discipline and worship a Province affirms in its formularies? The Archbishop of Canterbury suggests not and it is not sufficient to counter his judgment by an unsupported assertion. One wonders what other examples of a similar form my be culled from the pages of church history?
If the ABC can not be clear in Advent 2007, what makes anyone think he’ll be clearer next year. He is as clear as mud! Mud is all over the AC and he could clean it up, but he seems to like mud. It is sad he is unable to lead. It seems to me that Scripture is not the supreme authority for the ABC, otherwise, he would do something much more than the little he has done. No wonder the RC has over taken the AC in Great Britain. At least, the RC is clear and speaks plainly.
9, the ABC cannot be clear. Clarity leads to a decision. The AC only survives in uncertainty. Clarity is the last thing he wants. A decision one way or the other is a disaster. On the other hand clarity does not harm the Roman Cathalics survival as a church, in fact clarity enhances it.
wvparson – Didn’t your mother or father ever tell you that people pay attention to what you do rather than what you say? If what we do in General Convention or what we do in our parishes/dioceses contradicts what we say in our “official” formularies, then I submit that we no longer believe our official formularies. I may say that I believe speed limit laws are good for society and should be obeyed. However, I have receive 5 tickets a year for speeding, then do I really believe that speed limit laws are good and should be obeyed?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The longer the delay in doing anything definite, the greater proportion of membership are reappaiser-sympathetic, as the number of reasserters diminish. Momentum is gathering in TEC for total dominance of the reappraiser agenda, if it is not already so. Sing along, to the tune of For Me And My Gal: The bells are ring-ing, for he and his pal. It’s just a matter of time, folks.
# 9 – just wait for a January non-surprise – that most of Africa ain’t coming.