7.It is our unanimous desire to walk together. However given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years TEC no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.
May I ask how the Archbishop of Canterbury squares that with this appointment of TEC’s Presiding Bishop Michael Curry to this Task Group pursuant to point 8 of Addendum A to the Communique? Is it not a group concerned with ‘doctrine and polity’, even if he can wriggle his way around the definition of ‘internal standing committee?’
Isn’t the point that this task force is concerned with the polity consequences arising out of TEC’s breaches of the bonds of affection which are central to the polity of the Communion where most of the provinces are in broken or impaired communion with TEC and breaches of the doctrine of the Anglican Communion set out in the Communion’s decisions in Lambeth 1:10 and the Windsor Report?
As for the rest of the appointments, it is the usual palefaces from England, Ireland, Canada, Australia with one Indian and one South East Asian who they think will be accomodating for a bit of dressing. Justin’s chums, for Justin’s purposes. No real say for the majority of the Communion in the Global South.
I’m surprised this hasn’t garnered more attention, not just amongst commentators here, but from the Anglican blogosphere in general. I know that Anglican politics and fudge have largely lost their ability to surprise.
I wouldn’t have been surprised in the least if the task force never came into being. I wouldn’t have been surprised if it did happen but was so limited in its powers that it was essentially a farce.
What’s happened here is of a different order, though. Canterbury has followed through on creating a task force (fair enough), but:
1) he’s completely redefined their mandate.
2) he’s appointed a group that is so biased that it beggars belief.
This is the closest an Archbishop of Canterbury has come to giving the middle finger to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. One could argue that Rowan did so long before, but at the very least he was subtle about it.
The January Primates Communique states in point 7 of Addendum A:
May I ask how the Archbishop of Canterbury squares that with this appointment of TEC’s Presiding Bishop Michael Curry to this Task Group pursuant to point 8 of Addendum A to the Communique? Is it not a group concerned with ‘doctrine and polity’, even if he can wriggle his way around the definition of ‘internal standing committee?’
Isn’t the point that this task force is concerned with the polity consequences arising out of TEC’s breaches of the bonds of affection which are central to the polity of the Communion where most of the provinces are in broken or impaired communion with TEC and breaches of the doctrine of the Anglican Communion set out in the Communion’s decisions in Lambeth 1:10 and the Windsor Report?
As for the rest of the appointments, it is the usual palefaces from England, Ireland, Canada, Australia with one Indian and one South East Asian who they think will be accomodating for a bit of dressing. Justin’s chums, for Justin’s purposes. No real say for the majority of the Communion in the Global South.
I’m surprised this hasn’t garnered more attention, not just amongst commentators here, but from the Anglican blogosphere in general. I know that Anglican politics and fudge have largely lost their ability to surprise.
I wouldn’t have been surprised in the least if the task force never came into being. I wouldn’t have been surprised if it did happen but was so limited in its powers that it was essentially a farce.
What’s happened here is of a different order, though. Canterbury has followed through on creating a task force (fair enough), but:
1) he’s completely redefined their mandate.
2) he’s appointed a group that is so biased that it beggars belief.
This is the closest an Archbishop of Canterbury has come to giving the middle finger to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. One could argue that Rowan did so long before, but at the very least he was subtle about it.
Kevin and George nailed it in their May 13th “Anglican TV broadcast”:
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXaKGZvori4]He didn’t say that![/url]