Referencing Anglican polity and the Windsor Report, [Archbishop Drexel] Gomez said that in the three years since the release of the Windsor Report, positions across the Communion have “polarized” and there is “less trust” between parties and provinces than there has been for a long time.
“Everyone claims to be the defender of the true spirit of Anglicanism, and to describe that spirit as orthodox, mainstream, comprehensive or inclusive,” he said. “The language has become more strident, and, quite frankly, scaremongering is commonplace.”
He said in a situation which is becoming “increasingly overheated” we need to hear “a voice of calm.” We need to identify the fundamentals that we share in common, and to “state the common basis on which our mutual trust can be rebuilt.”
Stating that as “essentially all that the covenant proposal is — no more and no less,” Gomez clarified that it is not intended to define some sort of “new Anglicanism,” or invent a new model of authority, or “peddle a narrow or exclusive view of what Anglicanism is.”
“It is intended to state concisely and clearly the faith that we have all inherited together, so that there can be a new confidence that we are about the same mission,” he said.
[blockquote]”Te Paa said that Primates Meetings have gone from being gatherings for “leisurely thought, prayer” to a “quasi-governance body universally perceived as inappropriate, unbidden and unhelpful.”[/blockquote]
Wow. “Universally.” This woman wouldn’t hyperbolize in a million years.
😉
Sorta explains her warped perspective (e.g., “institutionalized dominant male power”).
🙄
As for the notion that a leadership role for the primates’ meeting is somehow “unbidden,” Jenny needs to read through a few Lambeth resolutions.
Given that Dr. Te Paa is the dean of the Theological College of St. John the Evangelist [b]AND[/b] was on the Lambeth Commission that came up with the Windsor Report, I think she’s read quite a few Lambeth Resolutions and understands the global situation quite a bit better than many of the people on here.
Well, for starters…
[blockquote]Resolutions from 1998
Resolution III.6
Instruments of the Anglican Communion
This Conference, noting the need to strengthen mutual accountability and interdependence among the Provinces of the Anglican Communion,
a. reaffirms Resolution 18.2(a) of Lambeth 1988 which “urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates’ Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, [b]so that the Primates’ Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters…[/b]”[/blockquote]
Must say, that sounds to this local yokel a teensy bit like they were “bidden.”
😉
Well, what do you expect in a report written by Jerry Hames for ENS? Certainly not objectivity and fairness. Hames is a partisan advocate of the “gay is OK” delusion.
I think it’s ironic that a notorious liberal like Jenny Te Paa of New Zealand finds even the milktoast St. Andrew’s draft of the proposed Covenant so objectionable. I say it’s ironic because the Covenant seems so obviously to be a broken reed that can’t hold any weight. It doesn’t explicitly condemn homosexual behavior or other sex outside of marriage, nor does it strengthen and clarify the supreme authority of Holy Scripture in Anglicanism as binding in disputed matters like this, nor does it create q workable disciplinary system that is adequate to the challenges we face. This Covenant is far too weak and vague. So why do liberals complain about it as much as they do?
I’ll reserve judgment on ++Gomez’s statements until the full speech is available. Hames may be misrepresenting him by highlighting all the parts that seem most critical of some conservative reactions to this unresolved crisis in world Anglicanism (mention of “overheated” voices and the need for calm etc.). OHOH, it wouldn’t be too surprising if this venerable elder stateman of the AC genuinely holds the sort of views summarized here. After all, +Tom Wirght has made similar statements.
Both of these esteemed orthdox leaders still don’t seem to get it yet. They just aren’t willing to think the “unthinkable” and admit that the AC has already passed the point of no return. Massive schism is not only inevitable; it is proper and even necessary. Two mutually contradictory religions can’t go on living under one roof. For as the Master himself warned us, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”
David Handy+
Elven Friends, I’m wondering if there is a public list of those who delivered papers at the Anglican Covenant Conference and whether said papers are available in any public format? Certainly these presenters from the various seminaries have laboured faithfully and our conversation might be enriched by reading the various perspectives? I know my colleague Leander Harding gave a thoughful treatment of “imperial pluralism” which T19 readers may find useful. (You can find it at his blog).
RE: “. . . and understands the global situation quite a bit better than many of the people on here.”
Certainly.
When Jenny Te Paa states that the process of the Primates Meetings is now “universally perceived as inappropriate, unbidden and unhelpful” we know that she reads all the minds of the Anglican Communion, and has determined that all — 100% all — think them “inappropriate, unbidden and unhelpful.”
Heh.
More like . . . “universally perceived [by I and my fellow revisionist Anglicans, who are all that really matter] as inappropriate, unbidden and unhelpful.”
; > )
mhg3: Most of the presentations from the conference are now online in audio format on the [url=http://www.gts.edu/lecturesacademicevents.asp]GTS website[/url]
[i] The elves thank you for your help. [/i]
As I see it is that we are in a state of compromise. The Progressives have been playing right out of the play book of Antonio Gramsci, and they are so close to their goals that they are salivating they just can’t wait any longer.
The reality of it is that she has taken as much bending as she can take and there is only one real solution but everyone is afraid to say it. Somebody has got to go. We can’t make all three parties happy, now we can compromise between two of the parties but not all three. The two conservative parties (evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics) can co-exist together at least for the time being. the “Progressives” however have progressed themselves right out of Anglicanism and right out or Christianity, something tells me however that the Conservatives are going to get the short end of the stick on this one.
http://www.orthodoxanglicanism.blogspot.com
No. 8 – If an attempt to define Anglicanism more closely the Catholics and Protestants in the Church can not, and should not, co-exist.
I’m glad for the interest in the Anglican Covenant Conference presentations. As Susan Russell notes, all three keynotes and half the panel presentations are now up in audio files on the General Seminary website. A full listing of the speakers is included in the audio file listing, with the remaining files to be posted in the next day or so. We hope to have text files of all the presentations up early next week.
And all of this is to decide whether or not sodomy is o.k.?
Beggars belief, really, when you step back from it and try to get your head around the total absurdity of this whole affair.
I highly recommend for your listening the presentation given by Leander Harding. Leander says exactly what needed to be said. I would imagine his point went over like a lead balloon, however.
Again, I say, what a waste of time going into liberal la-la land and giving this presentation. They have no interest whatsoever in being in covenant with those “primitive (non-enlightened) Africans”. Chaos in the Anglican communion is opportunity for extending their power-base. The choice is have a covenant that is even more insipid than milque-toast to appease this lot or have a document with meaning.
What worries me about the seeming trend between the first and second draft is that they are choosing the former rather than the later.
Perhaps Ms Te Paa should know better, but Windsor did call for an elevation of the primates’ meeting as an instrument of unity. The second draft relegates the primates to the irrelevancy.
I listened to Leander Harding and I think he is absolutely correct. In a Church in which nothing can be known and everyone has their own truth and all truths are equally valid, you have nothing. It’s nothing more than solipism on a grand scale and is not worth being a part of. You would do better to take up Sunday golf.