What emerged through the listening and reflective process could not have been predicted at the outset of the Conference. In spite of the absence of approximately 200 Gafcon Bishops the centre of gravity of the conference settled in a ”˜traditionalist’ position with regard to interpretation of Scripture and a desire to find a covenantal expression of Anglicanism. This was also the quiet and consistent lead given by the Archbishop.
What this means is:
1. The communion retains Lambeth 1:10 in its entirety with a call to do more effective listening to the different positions with regard to human sexuality.
2. We shall press ahead with improving the St Andrew’s Draft of the Anglican Covenant.
3. ”˜There is widespread support’ for the three moratoria of the Windsor Process.
4. ”˜There is a clear majority support for a pastoral forum along the lines advocated by the Windsor continuation group and a desire to see it in place speedily’
In other words, nothing whatsoever has changed. We’ll just continue to yammer about stuff until the end of time.
I am going home and telling my dog, Woodford, he has his own bishop. Who knew? I must concede, though, he is from the country and I have every reason to suspect he is closet Southern Baptist. Other than that, this communication was a total waste of trees/electrons.
Nos. 1 & 2, I disagree. He is saying that traditionalists (reasserters) are in the majority and in charge of the communion. He is saying stay and keep the faith and let the covenant process work out (and implied is let the Holy Spirit work). He is clearly also saying that TEC and ACofC may not be able to stay in the communion in the same structure as they now appear. But that we all should strive to hold the communion together in some form and that the traditionalists will create the form, to which the revisionists will unltimately conform or lose their present places in the present structure. Yes, nothing has changed from pre-Lambeth, but the same “pieces are on the table” to keep the communion together, if all will participate, as before Lambeth – they were not discarded at Lambeth (like 1.10 and the St Andrew’s Draft), which they could have been. I think because the AbofC didn’t “throw the bums out” (TEC and ACofC), everyone is ignoring what he did do. His three talks were no sop to TEC, ACofC or the revisionists, and I don’t think they came home particularly happy. His letters of the past were repudiated to some extent a year or so ago, when he gave an interview to a Dutch (I believe) newspaper, in which he indicated that his views now were not the same as they were when he wrote those letters. If the traditionalists will participate in the covenant drafting, it can become something that will hold the communion together and may definitely be something that TEC and ACofC cannot sign, and, therefore, limit themselves to a lesser position in the communion. But it may also be something individual dioceses will sign, which will put things where they should be – at the local level. Anyway, everyone needs to lighten up and give the HS a chance to work in our world, IMHO.
I remain confused. What does ‘There is widespread support’ for the three moratoria of the Windsor Process mean? Does it mean there is also widespread opposition? For all or one or two? Is “widespread support” different from a majority? Apparently so, as we also have ‘There is a clear majority support for a pastoral forum….’ I’m afraid all this does is point out that nothing that came out of Lambeth really contains much meaning, let alone gives some direction on how to proceed. Which, I understand, is what the Archbishop of Canterbury intended.
Billy, in all kindness, so what? TEC and other liberal folks will just keep doing what they want. They think they are the enlightened ones. We are antidiluvian reactionaries. The only way tranditionalists will win anything is by calling for repentance, and TEC will never, in a million years, do that.
[blockquote] I remain confused. What does ‘There is widespread support’ for the three moratoria of the Windsor Process mean? Does it mean there is also widespread opposition? For all or one or two? Is “widespread support†different from a majority? [/blockquote]
The statement of the Global Southerners who attended in the jamboree is posted on the [url=http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/statement_on_lambeth_conference_2008/ ]GS website[/url]. The glaring absence of signatures by the those that didn’t participate speaks volumes. One can infer provinces of Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya do not support the third moratorium. Thus, the statement as it stands is probably accurate.
(As I said in the comment section to the GS website, it is very troubling that the signatories are basically complicitous in the effort to exclude the other members of the Global South. To borrow from St Ben: The Global South must all hang together, or assuredly they will hang separately.)
The three parts of the moratorium are a package, not a menu. So long as the Episcopal Church fails to make an explicit statement that (1) no (more) bishops in same-sex relationships will be approved, and (2) God’s blessing will no (more) be asked for same-sex relationships bishops of other provinces will continue to visit congregations of people who no longer accept the authority of General Convention.
We have a brief period before the House of Bishops meets in September to see if the leadership of General Convention is willing to make an explicit statement about the consecration of (more) bishops in same-sex relationshios and asking God’s blessing on (more) such relationships. The conventional wisdom is that the leadership and the House of Bishops will not make such a statement, but will rather move to attempt to depose without trial the Bishop of Pittsburgh.
I compare the present situation of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion to that of a marriage in which the parties still have love for one another and have a desire to stay together, but have a stronger desire to insist on having their own way on an important matter on which they disagree. I remember saying to a husband, “After talking with your wife, I think you can save your marriage, but it will take a lot of work, and your girl friend will have to go. Choose your wife and work or the girl friend and divorce.” He said, “I choose the girl friend.” The divorce was messy, but it came about.
The relationships among the Episcopal Church and other churches of the Anglican Communion have come to divorce in a few cases, e.g. Uganda and perhaps Nigeria, Kenya, and the Southern Cone. They will likely get messier in time.
I suggested previously some steps the leadership of the Episcopal church and the leadership of the American Anglicans who have rejected the authority of General Convention might take to attempt to preserve as much communion as conscience will allow. These include on the Episcopal side the setting aside of all depositions for abandonment and invitations to those who have left to attend with seat and voice but not vote all Episcopal diocesan events, and on the other side a willingness to attend these events and to talk with the Episcopal Church leaders about matters of common concern. So far my sugestions have been met with silence.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
#3 Billy–What in the world would make you think I am not looking for the Holy Spirit to work in the world?
#6 – yes, though that statement references the three moratoria in the context of the forum of reference thingy – all of which are are only in the “reflections”, which is not even a recommendation, let alone a request. So, as George Conger points out in his brutally honest interview with Al Mohler, there are no moratoria, and there is no reason for any of the global south to cease border crossing at present. I suppose that when, and if, there is an attempt to propose such a forum, the Jerusalem Declaration group will study it, comment upon it, and assist in the lengthy process towards possible eventual fruition in some form that is recognized by more instruments of unity than just the ABC.
Put another way, since Lambeth did nothing, all of these papers about whatever is contained in the reflections are meaningless. I fully expect GAFCON to proceed with what it wants to proceed with, most likely a new province for North America, and as or if other developments occur in the future, well, those will be dealt with then. I suspect that the next primates meeting will take up some of the issues kept off the table at Lambeth. Should be interesting.
The ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC and the ACCanada have not yet heard the communion support for moratoria for 5 years despite emergency Primates meetings, Windsor Commission/Report, Dromantine, Dar es Salaam. Why should the results of Lame-beth 2008 inadabadaveeeeeda reflections produce a different result, pray tell? This piece smacks of the same self-satisfaction as the bishops march participants – theye were there and they purported to do something and they felt good about it. The Lame-beth Reflections, the same. Results. Nada.
#8, David Keller … in response to your question I can only quote back to you the last sentence of your # 2.