Once again I find myself both in much sympathy with AM but also ultimately unconvinced by their critique. I too believe it would have been best if all the Primates met to evaluate TEC’s response. However, it cannot be denied that there were clearly serious problems ”“ financial, logistical, political – with that way forward. Indeed, a case can be made that to call such a meeting at this time would have been to put on this Instrument more pressure than it could be expected to bear and be action damaging to the Communion. It is ultimately the Archbishop’s decision whether to call an emergency meeting and he clearly took advice from the Primates about whether this was needed. The consultation with the Primates showed limited support for this way forward. Apparently only 3 of the 26 Primates who replied requested such a meeting! For the Archbishop to call an unscheduled meeting when there was such limited demand would probably be irresponsible, especially if, as claimed, several primates were very hostile to the idea.
The proposed alternative is one AM describes as the creation of a “hand-picked team of supposed specialists to determine the future life of the Communion in all its representative bodies”. In addition to its rather cynical tone, this description seriously distorts the role of that group according to the letter.
It is not some separate “hand-picked team” doing its own thing but a group who will work ”˜in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group’. The reason it is needed is because, far from “acting alone in this”, the Archbishop wishes to work collegially on ”˜the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans’. Although clearly different, there are parallels in this way forward with Windsor’s proposed Council of Advice (paras 111 and 112). There is nothing at all to suggest that it will “determine the future life of the Communion”, it will simply “take certain issues forward to Lambeth”. Far from determining the future life “in all its representative bodies” it is, as noted, working closely with those bodies and “will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process” – a sign, once again, of the importance of attending Lambeth and supporting and shaping the Covenant process.
We start a new process and Lambeth, if all attend, is the solution. I don’t think so, but we shall see. Lucy would never move the football after the last time.
The Covenant draft has been loudly rejected by New Zealand’s dwindling Anglican church(es):
http://www.duomo.ac.nz/acnz/?p=1005#comments
Expect the tiny Anglican churches of Scotland and Wales to fall in line.
Andrew, you are flogging a dead horse. Obesa cantavit.
[blockquote] Indeed, a case can be made that to call such a meeting at this time would have been to put on this Instrument more pressure than it could be expected to bear and be action damaging to the Communion.[/blockquote]
If a primates meeting had been called as envisaged and asked for how much worse could it be than the division that we now have developing pray?
Some personal thoughts:[blockquote] With colleagues in the Anglican Communion Institute I have argued for some time that non-invitation to Lambeth should be implemented as a form of discipline. ACI proposed in a major submission to the Lambeth Commission (Communion and Discipline) that this should be applied, at that time to those who consented to Gene Robinson’s election in 2003. I therefore share AM’s concerns here and wish the Archbishop had been able to withdraw invitations. [/blockquote]
It is very nice to wish so. But what if he does not, as seems likely? What do you propose then? The withdrawal of invitations to the TEC consecrators is probably the one thing that would allow the global south to fully attend. It is therefor not something merely to wish for, it should be very important. It says something very explicit about what the Archbishop wants if he deliberately does not do the one thing that would allow the global south primates to attend. As to the primates meeting:[blockquote] Once again I find myself both in much sympathy with AM but also ultimately unconvinced by their critique.[/blockquote]
So, another good idea, that is of no consequence if it is not followed? Finally, [blockquote]The challenge in the months leading up to GAFCON and Lambeth is whether those who share AM’s concerns about the Advent letter will accept and act on the basis of these assumptions or whether there is room for serious discussion about the important issues AM raises and a common discernment together as to the way forward for the Communion as a whole.[/blockquote]
With all due respect, I don’t think that further discussion is the challenge. There is already much room for discussion. People largely understand others’ positions. The challenge is for those advocating attendance at Lambeth to come up with a reason for attending other than just to have further discussions. TEC’s actions have torn the fabric of the communion to its deepest level. I would think it clear by now that the orthodox Anglicans in the US are not going to go away and become Presbyterians and most of the global south is neither going to adopt TECs innovations nor cease to support the orthodox in the US. If these things are not dealt with at Lambeth, there seems likely the Anglican Communion will effectively cease to function. I see calls to come to Lambeth, but I see no calls for anything to be done at Lambeth. This needs to be seriously engaged; it should not be ignored. You could yet persuade. It should be incumbent upon those advocating full attendance at Lambeth to come up with a plan to deal with these problems, not just advocate further discussion. Not to choose to do so is to choose for things to fall apart.