Dear Brothers and Sisters,
As we move into our final two days the attention of the Lambeth Conference has turned to the proposed Anglican Covenant. I commented to my Indaba group that, “It feels almost as if the whole Conference has been designed to prepare for and lead up to the discussion of the Covenant; the whole of the Covenant has been designed to lead up to the Appendix, and the Appendix has been designed to lead to section 8 – how to deal with recalcitrant Provinces.”
Note: I do not believe that IS the case, I said it almost FEELS LIKE IT. (And if the above makes no sense, you can find the Draft and the Appendix on the Anglican Communion web site.)
My sense is that most of the Bishops have come to accept the concept of having a Covenant, and there is not a lot of dissatisfaction with what has been proposed in this second (“St. Andrew’s”) Draft. But there is MUCH hesitance to accept/approve the proposed Appendix, which outlines a process that most of the Bishops see as overly juridical and punitive.
I think there is fairly widespread recognition that there could be a situation in which a Province has acted in a way that necessitates action, and if the Province will not self-discipline, someone has to have the authority to take corrective measures against it. What seems to be emerging as a majority opinion is that that “someone” needs to be the Archbishop of Canterbury acting in concert with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, but that the process needs to be flexible and cannot be spelled out in anything like the detail of the presently proposed Appendix.
One thing that I am pressing for as vigorously as possible is that the ratification process (if/when we get to it) will begin at the Diocesan level, not (just) the Provincial. I believe that Central Florida will want to endorse the Covenant, whether or not The Episcopal Church does so, and I believe we – and many other dioceses – would believe we had been disenfranchised if TEC were to decide the matter for us.
Tomorrow continues the discussion, and then we wrap things up on Sunday. Thank you for your continued, fervent prayer.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
–(The Right Rev.) John W. Howe is Bishop of Central Florida
[blockquote]What seems to be emerging as a majority opinion is that that “someone” needs to be the Archbishop of Canterbury acting in concert with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates…[/blockquote]
Did I detect a “zing” here?
What’s so amazing here is that if you re-read the critical point #8 in the appendix of the St. Andrew’s (the second) draft of the Covenant that Bishop Howe says there is such angst about, it’s a VERY timid response indeed. In fact, I would argue that it never really states what the repercussions will be if a province rejects a request of an Instrument of Communion. The key passage, 8.4 simply states: “If the Council decides that the rejection is incompatible with the Covenant, then during the course of that meeting of the Council either (a) the Church involved may declare voluntarily that it relinquishes the force and meaning of the purposes of the Covenant, or (b) the Council shall resolve whether the Church involved may be understood to have relinquished the force and meaning of the purposes of the Covenant.” So even if either (a) or (b) were to happen, so what? What would it mean? The Covenant doesn’t say. If we think about the past five years, for example, had this Covenant been in force, what would have changed from the hopeless situation we are now in? Even if TEC or the Council had declared that “the force and meaning of the purposes of the Covenant” had been relinquished, what would that mean? The draft does not say. It doesn’t say that province is somehow “out of communion” with the rest of the Anglican Communion. It doesn’t say that the bishops of that province wouldn’t be invited to Lambeth. In fact, it doesn’t really say ANYTHING would happen at all! Furthermore, judging from the actions of the current ABC, it seems even more doubtful that anything really would change at all. So there’s a lot of hand wringing going on among these bishops about a totally toothless tiger. Such is the state of this “Communion.”
With utmost regard for the continued witness of +Howe, as others have said, sometimes gentlemen don’t realize they are playing a gentlemen’s game with those who are not gentlemen.
We don’t pass laws for the law abiding, but for those who couldn’t conform to the often existing norms in the first place. The recent history of the Anglican Communion has shown that it must have something that acts roughly like a Supreme Court or maybe even only like a Senate/House Ethics Committee. But, something.
Peace,
It’s all over.
“What seems to be emerging as a majority opinion is that that “someone” needs to be the Archbishop of Canterbury acting in concert with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, acting in concert with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates,…”
=============================================================
Why does anybody “need to be the Archbishop of Canterbury…?”
Why can’t the primates of the Anglican Communion, meeting in a synod, select a bishop who presides over the synod? A bishop who serves for a prescribed term as a coordinator, not a controller, of primatial synods.
Why not have a synodically elected standing committee of primates who are in communication with the primates and take action within synodically prescribed boundaries of authority between full-blown synods of the primates?
After all, the ABC is selected and appointed by the government of Great Britain. The primates of the Communion have no direct say in his appointment or authority over his actions/inactions.
AnglicanFirst,
I think your suggestion would have the hearty endorsement of Archbishop Orombi and many others who reside outside what is commonly referred to as the “Western Church.” I agree with you.
Miserable,
I don’t believe Bp Howe has any delusions about the players. And I think he was aware of a greater conservative voice that would be at Lambeth despite the boycotting Provinces, than other bishops were aware. He’s run into something else, here, that he’s having a hard time right now getting his brain around – Mark Lawrence, too.
So pray for that discernment; pray for the obstacle to the bishop’s having their way to be made visible and removed. Ephesians 3:20,21.
Your comment reminded me further of an old saying I learned when I was playing soccer in Europe so many years ago:
Rugby is a thug’s game played by gentlemen.
Soccer is a gentlemen’s game played by thugs.
I believe the conservative majority of the AC came to Lambeth ready to play a tough, bloody game of Rugby. Only to find they were to play soccer. Wrong pitch. The game can still be changed.
RGEaton
[blockquote] … than other bishops were aware. He’s run into something else, here, that he’s having a hard time right now getting his brain around – Mark Lawrence, too. [/blockquote]
I don’t know what these two sentences mean. Can you explain a little more?
Read the next sentence re: discernment.
Something is obfuscated in, or perhaps obfuscating the process of moving forward to a conclusion that would match the majority of the bishops’ desire, i.e. a clear statement about sexuality and TEC and Canada’s blatant disregard for the community of the Communion.
Howe and Lawrence are bright boys, and they have the ability to distinguish between spirits. So if they can’t see it – they are running into it, though – then they are in need of further prayer in order to get a handle on what the problem is. It could be a human produced thing, and/or it could be a spiritual battle of some sort.
Does that make it clearer? Let me know.
Clearly Rob, it is both….
As in “both/and”…