What’s needed to under-write the Covenant is the further implementation of what’s known as the Windsor Process. Again there was much endorsement of the process, along with some anxiety about commitment to it. Crucially, there was support for three moratoria:
* consecration of people in same-sex relationships
* blessings of same-sex unions
* cross-border incursions by bishops.
Without these it will be very hard to move forward. Secondly there will be a Pastoral Forum which can come into action quickly in a situation of dispute, and thirdly the four Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meeting) will need to have their roles and relationships clarified to avoid the confusions and distrust of recent years.
What now?
Of course there are real concerns. Mine centre on whether the Gafcon bishops and leaders will be prepared to engage with the re-affirmed Covenant and Windsor processes, and whether the American church will hold to the moratoria. It was a huge impoverishment that the Gafcon bishops weren’t all with us (though 80 were). We need all of us to be exercising gracious restraint and committing ourselves to affection, trust and goodwill towards each other and in particular to the Archbishop of Canterbury. But such ‘affection, trust and goodwill’ are surely at the heart of any Christlike living. How can we not offer such gifts to each other?
This was a remarkable experience for all of your bishops. We were fully engaged and much inspired.
What’s the big deal about bishops in same-sex relationships when there are untold numbers of priests in Tec, ACoC and elsewhere (e.g., I am told, in dioceses like Chelmsford in England) in such relationships?
Why wasn’t this addressed in Windsor?
The draw the line at the episcopacy is the strangest kind of political posturing. What is the difference in ‘lifestyle’ that’s required of a bishop that isn’t of a priest?
Can someone please explain to me why this distinction is made?
Very good point, #1. As for this statement-“Of course there are real concerns. Mine centre on whether the Gafcon bishops and leaders will be prepared to engage with the re-affirmed Covenant and Windsor processes…” Look at what solid, concrete results GAFCON got from only their relatively brief first conference. And Bishop Prichard thinks that the GAFCON leaders are going to care to have anything to do with this futile, going nowhere, do nothing fiddle-faddle? I doubt very highly that GAFCON has any desire to hitch its wagon to such a sick and dying horse.