In a final draft of the communiqué, debated by bishops in a closed ”˜hearing’ last night, the bishops say there is ”˜widespread support’ for three moratoria:
’This could be the “generous act of love” the communion is looking for. The moratoria could be taken as part of a sign of the bishops’ affection, trust and goodwill towards the Archbishop of Canterbury and one another. The moratoria will be difficult to enforce, so there are some fears as to whether it will hold. But there is a desire to make it do so.
”˜There are questions to be explored in relation to how long the moratoria are intended to serve. Perhaps the moratoria could be seen as a “season of gracious restraint.”’
There was also strong support for a new global Pastoral Forum – a rapid deployment hit squad which could be sent to intervene where actions by provinces threaten to cause disruption to the life of the Communion. The Pastoral Forum would also act as a ”˜friendly uncle’ providing shelter for those parishes which have pulled away from their dioceses and provinces until such time as they can be ”˜returned to their parents’.
”˜There is an agreement that it should be pastoral and not legal and should be able to respond quickly. It was also clearly stated that this process should always be moving towards reconciliation with the parent Province.’
But the bishops stressed: ”˜It would need to be clear that the forum could operate in a Province only with its consent and in particular with the consent of the Primate of the Province. There was some support for an alternative suggestion to appoint in any dispute a Pastoral Visitor, working with a professional arbitrator and to create in the Communion a “pool” of such visitors.’
The Reflections Drafting Group will prepare a final version of the statement today, taking into account last night’s hearing. It will be presented to the bishops this afternoon when they are expected to affirm it.
But whether this will make any difference is yet to be seen.
Read it all. I have to admit I found the description of the pastoral forum–“a rapid deployment hit squad”–amusing since it hardly sounded Anglican and since nothing the Anglican Communion hierarchy has done like this recently has remotely approached being able to be described by such a title!
But more important to me was the title Lichfield gave to the press release and the verb they chose in the first paragraph. “Bishops agree way forward for Anglican Communion,” they tell us. “After two-and-a-half weeks of prayer, Bible study, reflection, and what was predicted to be ”˜frank expression and robust debate’, the bishops will this afternoon agree a ”˜Reflections Document’ setting out their vision of the future of the Anglican Communion.” Interesting word choice, that. Agree means “to give consent; assent” or “to come to one opinion or mind; come to an arrangement or understanding; arrive at a settlement.” But how exactly will this happen at Lambeth 2008? And given the length and the meandering motley nature of the final statement, what would their agreeing to it actually mean?
Sorry, but these words are a projection of wish fulfillment but not the reality of what is taking place on the ground. All of which comes back to my anxiety about this Lambeth from the outset–the nature of the process and what it was designed to achieve. The only thing which was clear was what the bishops were not doing–parliamentary procedure, resolutions, voting, amendments, etc. Ok, fine. But if that is what the process isn’t, then what is the alternative? None of the participants seems clear on the answer, and no, that is not a good thing in any conference, especially one where the leaders gathered face on of the greatest crises in their history–KSH.
The Bishop of Lichfield’s words in his press release may have been carefully chosen but they were not well chosen.
For the bishops to agree that the reflection document accurately represents the statements made in the course of the Indaba process is [b]not[b] for the bishops to agree that the conclusions of some … even a majority of “some” … creates a mandate for all.
There is work left for the bishops to do here at Canterbury today … but at the end of the day, if the Archbishop of Canterbury gets what he wanted (and it looks like he will), a Lambeth Conference of reflection rather than resolution is going to leave us on August 4 precisely where we were on July 16 … without the Lambeth Conference Sword of Damocles hanging over the Episcopal Church.
And that will be enough to make some of our hearts glad.
The conference has done nothing. It was designed to do nothing. It was a success in doing what it was designed to do.
It in fact is looking like a lose-lose outcome. Those who support Sodomy as holy did not win anything, The official mind of the house is still as reported ten years ago. Those who support the need for a communion which upholds Christian Truth lose in that no actions are being taken against those who lead people into heresy.
In looking to avoid win-lose, they got lose-lose.
The Lambeth Conference will leave the Anglican situation in North America in a state of turmoil and the Anglican Communion will continue to suffer from the unavoidable shock waves generated by that turmoil.
Lambeth will have done nothing to address the turmoil’s root causes. In effect, Lambeth 2008, has avoided directly addressing the causative issues and by its inability to defend “…the Faith once given…” has given the ‘green light’ to consolidating actions by the revisionist hierarchies in the USA and Canada.
It will be ten years until the next Lambeth Conference and who is going to ‘mind the hen house’ during that period?
Will it be the Primates acting synodically? The function of the Primates has not been an issue that has been effectively raised and discussed at Lambeth. The ABC’s regard for the Primates acting in synod seems to be low to non-existent.
The ACC has been mentioned. But the ACC has lost the confidence of the majority of the Communion. Asking the ACC to be involved seems to be like asking the KGB to review parole requests from individuals sent to the Soviet gulags.
It won’t be this ABC. So good bye to any dynamic efforts to preserve “…the Faith once given…,” on the part of Canturbury.
Meanwhile, as revisionist ‘consolidating actions’ and victory dances continue in North America, the plight of the orthodox Anglicans on that continent will present a picture of Christian repression and suffering in the face of heresy that will demand action from the bishops who represent a majority of the Anglican Communion.
These revisionist actions will require further border crossing and will result in more law suits as parishes and dioceses leave the conference of the USA and the synod of Canada.
Eventually, whether or not ABC approves, his actions/inactions will have forced the formation of a new Anglican province in North America.
It should be clear to all reasserters that GAFCON is the only game in town. The covenant is 10 to 15 years down the road and will never be enforcable.
If the Forum can operate only with the approval of the Primate of the Province in which it intervenes, clearly there will never be effective intervention in TEC.
TEC needs to decide what it wants to be. If it wants to be a functioning member of an international communion, part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church,” then it needs to submit its life to the discernment of that body. The body as a whole has disapproved of what TEC is doing (Lambeth ’98, which remains unchanged since this conference has passed no resolutions, plus all the Primates’ Meetings since).
If, on the other hand, TEC believes that what it is doing is “prophetic” and “just” then it needs to put its actions where its beliefs are and withdraw from the international body.
It is trying currently to stay in the body while doing what the body condemns, with the result of severe damage to the body and injury to its members in other continents.
TEC should choose. I would have respect for the choice, but I have no respect for what it is doing now, trying to do two contradictory things.
We have read a number of affirmations of Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 as “the mind of the communion.” I would like to see a full list of these affirmations by Archbishop Williams and other bishops, at least to have a reasonably robust club to beat down Satan underfoot.
An answer to the question, “Who will mind the hen house.” With the Archbishop of Canerbury refusing to make decisions toward discipline of TEC and CofC, and gutting Lambeth of any decision making, and undermining the Primates Meetings decisions, the only game in town with any clout will be the Gafcon Council of Primates. It will be assuming power by default and slowly but surely other orthodox provinces will be joining it and accepting the Council’s decisions. At that point, the Anglican Revolution will be complete and the revisionists will be reduced to observer status at best.
Susan Russell is absolutely correct when she writes:
[blockquote]…but at the end of the day, if the Archbishop of Canterbury gets what he wanted (and it looks like he will), a Lambeth Conference of reflection rather than resolution is going to leave us on August 4 precisely where we were on July 16 … without the Lambeth Conference Sword of Damocles hanging over the Episcopal Church.
And that will be enough to make some of our hearts glad. [/blockquote]
What TEC wanted from Lambeth was nothing: No resolutions, no mortorium, no animadversion. And ++Rowan delivered nothing like only he could…this was definitely his hour.
If you have even a hint of orthodoxy in your blood, you had better watch your back in the US of A from here on out.
Kendall writes: “Sorry, but these words are a projection of wish fulfillment but not the reality of what is taking place on the ground.”
It is a truth universally found — though far from universally acknowledged — that people sometimes mistake wishes for reality. (Apologies to Jane Austen.)