(1) Nowhere in the lecture did he refer to the Windsor Report and to conciliar authorities. No reference was made to the instruments of unity or to Canterbury as the focus of unity. Missing was also the quadrant-demarcation of churches and power blocs in Communion’s “Cold War” (to borrow Cameron’s allusion to NATO). His approach in mapping the Communion future is strikingly different from that undertaken by Fulcrum and ACI, which by and large offer a structural and conciliar solution to the present Communion crisis.
(2) The above is underlined by the astonishing way Cameron reinterpreted and defended the Anglican Covenant. The idea of Covenant was first proposed in the Windsor Report under the heading “Canon Law and Covenant” (Windsor Report, 113-120). The sequence and relation between the two are important: “Canon Law” first, then “Covenant”. The Windsor Report has in mind that the Covenant would be a “Communion law” that “would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion. The Covenant could deal with: the acknowledgement of common identity; the relationships of communion; the commitments of communion; the exercise of autonomy in communion; and the management of communion affairs (including disputes). (Windsor Report, 118)”
In sharp contrast, Cameron (intentionally?) dismissed the juridical and administrative language…
We haven’t heard much from SE Asia or the rest of the Global South since Gafcon.
Given the earlier storm over Michael Poon’s criticisms of Gafcon, I imagine that the rest of the Global South are keeping their powder dry until after Lambeth. The Province of the West Indies has still to voice an opinion and that could be significant, in light of the role played by Drexel Gomez in the Covenant process.
Please “read it all” and note especially the questions Dr. Poon poses at the end:
These questions encapsulate the basic concerns Dr. Poon has consistently expressed in his writing: structural reform of the Communion to better reflect strength in the pews, and a Communion-wide catechetical approach to doctrinal uniformity. His reservations about GAFCon, as I read them, have more to do with its timing and tactics than its goals.
Note also Dr. Poon’s clear perception (and alarm) at the gutting of disciplinary provisions in the currently-circulating Covenant draft. We have recently seen both ++Cantuar and +Durham emphasize the importance of the Covenant in resolving the Current Unpleasantness, while at the same time we have seen the Covenant so rewritten as to preclude any such resolution — even if there were the slightest possibility of its approval Communion-wide before Lambeth 2018, which of course there is not.
Unless Lambeth Palace begins immediately to hear — and most importantly, [i]act[/i] — on the recommendations of such thoughtful voices as Dr. Poon and Dr. Radner, the Communion as a coherent body will disintegrate. It is in all probability too late already.