ABC:  Draft Covenant Unacceptable and Lambeth Will Not Be Deferred

Well, I’m sure ++Gomez, and the other “drafters” of the Covenant will be pleased to see this, that their (highly praised at Tanzania) ‘draft efforts” were unacceptable!??

Poor +++Rowan, he never talks without managing to step in it.

THERE is no point in a Covenant, IF there is no discipline. 
I hope the Globe and Mail is incorrect, else ALL is lost.

Grannie Gloria

“These are complicated days for our church,” he said. “I am steering and pastoring a church in the process of discernment [trying to achieve understanding and insight into itself],” he said.

No, this is TECusaCORP trying to force discernment on its own members and the entire Anglican Communion. This has resulted in a vehicle with three steering wheels: TECusaCORP steering left, the GS steering right, and the ABC trying to steer down the center. The result is going to be a wreck due to lack of steering control.

the snarkster

Folks, read it for what it is!  ++Rowan is coming to America to accept the terms the US bishops will dictate to him.  If you believe any other “solution” is coming I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

RSB

Personally, I find it very hard to maintain self respect when I talk out of both sides of my mouth.  Not only that, but the message gets extremely garbled and difficult to understand.

Is anyone suprised that the Archdruid and the presiding deacon are going to try to have everything come out as “non-event”?

He won’t ask TEC to leave…he won’t show TEC the door. 

If y’all are waiting for ‘American style’ action/consequence, it will not happen.  He has been crystal clear on it.

He won’t show them the door…  He will show them the table where they need to sit and work it out.  

There ain’t any HURRY in Rowan’s mind.  He has the centuries of time and the weight of his office…and he will try to hold all things together…even as the church and structures weaken to the point of collapse.

I firmly believe that if ++Rowan does nothing more than talk the GS will walk. Of course I never expected that ++Rowan would come down on the side of the orthodox—he is a far cry from orthodox himself. The AC as we have known it is lost. As snarkster said with three steering wheels, one going left, one going right, and one trying to go down the center there is going to be a crash and it is going to be a BIG one.

Talk, talk, talk that is all Canterbury wants to do and the time for talk is past and the time for action has come. There can no longer be two “churches” one Christian and one Unitarian-Universalist inhabiting the same Church. It hasn’t worked in the past and it won’t work in the future. The time for the divorce is now. The AC is irrepairably broken and this is the time to recognize the fact and go out separate ways.

This week’s sign that the apocalypse is near.

Yeah, I know - it’s a bit like coming to watch a demolition derby with monster cars duking it out and instead you see a wee man trying to fix a relatively small car so that it can transport its occupants from one place to the next.  Poor you!

I think FrRick and others are correct about AOC’s sympathies, but it is unfair for others to attack him personally.  I think his beliefs are sincere and he has acted in an honorable fashion.

The AOC certainly wants to avoid having to choose between TEC/Canada and the GS. That is why he has consistently made conservative sounding statements to push TEC to the right before TEC makes an important decision (i.e., his actions before GC2003 and in his statements after the Communique), while generally supporting TEC as much as possible after it makes a [non-compliant] decision (i.e., the Task Force report).

Ideally, the AOC supports the Communique, does not invite TEC to Lambeth and allows the Primate at Lambeth to vote up or down to essentially make the seperation permanent and further endores a new Province structure. 

But if he vacillates (which I expect him to do), it is hard to count up enough votes in the AC to kick TEC out of the AC; I would be very interested if anyone has done a Primate by Primate vote prediction.  Certainly, there are not enough votes on the Standing Committee for a recommendation in that direction.

If TEC is invited to Lambeth, I would be shocked if most of the GS doesn’t walk.

Time for the ACN to act.

The Study Guide for the Draft Covenant is out.  It is posted on the General Convention web page at: http://ecusa.anglican.org/gc.htm
It is a PDF file.  I have just glanced at it but not read it carefully.

I found the phrasing by the Globe writer a bit strange.

“... he found unacceptable a draft covenant presented to the senior archbishops, or primates, that would allow the communion to boot out member churches ...”

The writer is may be conflating ++Williams reaction to the draft covenant with the potential for discipline. The article does say that this was a closed meeting with divinity students at a very liberal seminary, so the information is not based on direct quotes. Secondly, the draft covenant is a draft and subject to negotiation. Third, without the details of why ++Williams thinks the draft is unacceptable, we are jumping to conclusions. There is a reason why this type of hearsay evidence is not permissable in court.

Until I hear what ++Williams’ problems with the draft are, from him directly and not through the double filter of a liberal grad student talking to a moderate journalist (in Canada that usually means non-rabid liberal), I will reserve judgement.

Without knowing why he finds the draft unacceptable, it’s hard to criticize.  I’m not a big fan of it myself.  Had it been in force, would it have prevented anything that’s happened since 2003?  No, in my judgment.  The theological statements are big enough to drive trucks through, and the Primates seem to have had no problem formalizing their role even in the absence of a written clause doing it for them.

After a bit more research, the Globe journalist is a bona fide liberal and former NDP candidate. However, he is reasonably well informed regarding Church matters, having been on the religious affairs beat for many years.

As far as the covenant goes I’ll reserve judgment until the final result. There are some things I think need clarified or added to it but could be covered by the 39 articles. As has been said, this is just a draft and needs to be ironed out.

I’m with you Bill and Phil. I to would rather have it in a direct statement from ++Rowan.

Please, people.  So quick to put your faith in any report!  Wait until something substantial and official comes out.  I seem to remember a lot of whining during Tanzania due to over-speculation.  Wait and see what happens before getting all tied up in knots.

I am stepping out on a major limb here as one the folks here might style a “reappraiser” and commenting on what the Archbishop of Canterbury said.  I do so with a deep level of hesitation, because often the comments I have read here toward those with differing perspectives are less than gracious.  That said, I have a concern for the truth and so will add my voice.

I am an Episcopal priest and a Th.D. student in the Faculty of Divinity at Trinity College, in the University of Toronto.  As a result, I was invited to be part of this closed door meeting with divinity students from Trinity and Wycliffe Colleges.  As you may or may not know, Toronto in unqiue in North America in having two Anglican divinity schools which happen to be situated directly across the street from each other.  In general, Trinity is high church and tends to be rather liberal.  Wycliffe is low church and tends to be conservative.  This was, therefore, a unqiue opportunity for the students of both schools to come together and hear from the Archbishop in a calm environment.  Students from both colleges, as well as faculty, were invited to ask the Archbishop any questions they had for about 50 minutes.  He graciously and carefully answered all of them, not necessarily to everyone’s satisfaction, including my own, but still with a level of care and concern that was remarkable.  Even those who were predisposed to be critical of the Archbishop found him gracious and very likeable.  His manner is remarkably disarming.

With regard to the issue of the Covenant, I can report what I heard.  I believe that the Globe and Mail may have reported his comments with some error.  What I remember is that he said that the outline of the covenant as proposed in the Windsor Report was unacceptable. He did not, however, state that the draft proposed at the Primates’ Meeting was unacceptable.  In fact, he did not really comment on the proposed Covenant as it is being debated across the communion, except to say that the Communion will decide what it’s future life together will look like.

With regard to his agreement to meet with the U.S. House of Bishops he said that because the Bishops requsted not only a visit from himself, but also the Primates’ Standing Committee it has taken a while to arrange everything.  They plan to attend the meeting in September.

I hope this helps to clarify what was and wasn’t said.  As with any situation like this I would urge extreme caution before jumping to conclusions.

Easter Blessings to you all.

This is one of those situations where I think we should wait and see.  That this came out of a “closed door session” implies that it is the impression of one seminarian who had (one assumes- it being the nature of closed door sessions) a duty to keep what he heard in the room confidential.  This implies that it was relayed by someone who is violating his own ethics, and it is my policy not to put much, if any trust in people who violate such confidences.
My own hope for Lambeth, regardless of the level of TEC involvement, is that representation of Anglicans worldwide will be more proportional than in the past.  Given the huge percentage of the Communion in the GS, representation of GS should be much greater than TECs, regardless of the number of nominal bishops in one place or another.  TEC has lots of trust money to whittle away supporting hundreds of bishops, some of whom have diocese with fewer members than a large church.  Let’s see some real democracy at work.  If Nigeria has 10 times as many Anglicans, it should have 10 times as many bishops at Lambeth.
Or, is democratic representation more foreign to TEC polity than they like to pretend?

Thank you, Trinitymatthew, for your report of the closed meeting.

A quick follow up in response to tjmcmahon’s comment above.  There was absolutely no stated expectation that what was said in this remarakable meeting would be kept confidential.  None.  Rather it was closed door so that students could ask questions free of intrusions by the press and others not connected to the colleges who might disrupt the conversation.  There were at least 200 people present.  Any attempt to keep all of the people silent would be impossible.  Please do not assume that anyone violated his or her own ethics in reporting what was said.  They only do so if they mischaracterize the archbishops words.

I move a vote of thanks to TrinityMatthew for his report.

Trinitymatthew, We often hear ungracious words from both sides…these are tense times, and even those who would normally be gracious can sometimes get caught up in the emotions of the moment…and of course both sides have people who just aren’t gracious at all…sadly.  Thanks for the clarification on the meeting…the fact that the ABC is willing to share some of the inner workings of his mind in relation to these issues with students in seminary who face what could be a very uncertain future is a good thing…I only wish that he could do the same with the rest of us…I will jump to no conclusions about his comments are the meeting in September…until we get to October…I am afraid that is where I will need to draw a line and take some type of concrete action…I am only praying that the path will be clear when that time comes…

Trinitymatthew-
Thank you for the clarification on the meeting and the Archbishop’s comments (I was typing my earlier comment and did not read yours until after posting mine.  If I read you correctly, this was not a “closed door”- ie: confidential”- meeting, but rather a “by invitation” session.  Thanks particularly for the clarification on the remarks of the Covenant.

I am glad indeed for Trinity Matthews gracious clarification.  I would have been surprised if the original report was an accurate summary of the ABC’s views:-
1. In view of his publicly stated support for the draft covenant at and subsequent to Tanzania.  The covenant leaves open sanction, albeit as a last resort.
2. Given the consequences spelled out in his June 2006 essay on the “Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today” if the US Episcopal Church follows its “prophetic” voice.
All available from his website:-
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/index2a.html
The reality is that the US Episcopal Church is already in impaired communion with substantial parts of the Communion.  The Communique and draft Covenant offered a way back in.
One lives in hope.

are=or…I should proofread before posting…

If the meeting wasn’t confidential I would be interested in any other observations that anyone might have coming out of the meeting…we get so little insight into these things that it leaves one wanting more info…for example, what was his careful explanation of how such things (homosexuality in scripture) should be read…but alas, any comment in that direction would probably lead to comments of a non-gracious nature…but still any insights would be of interest…

As an aside if anyone has not read Matt’s thread in full: Archbishop Rowan Williams: ‘The Bible Today: Reading & Hearing’, it does explain a lot of his view of Scripture and his view on the instant controversies although it does not provide a definitive answer.  Well worth while, although he has his own style which requires extreme concentration and in my case careful re-reading.

Trinitymatthew,

Thanks for that report as you understood it and remember it. I’d like to ask for a further clarification, if I may. With respect to:

he said that the outline of the covenant as proposed in the Windsor Report was unacceptable. He did not, however, state that the draft proposed at the primates’ Meeting was unacceptable.

I see 2 ways of understanding your comment. There may be other ways.

1. The draft itself isn’t an issue (at the moment). What is an issue is the foundation of the draft, or of any draft that may surface in the future. The Windsor Report’s basis and call for a “Covenant” is flawed in Cantuar’s eyes. Therefore, no draft—ever—would be acceptable no matter how good it is, because it’s foundational premise is unacceptable. ++Williams is, in essence, rejecting all drafts that may ever surface.

2. The Windor Report outline is unacceptable, in and of itself, and any draft covenant based directly upon it will also be unacceptable. However, the idea of a Covenant is fully acceptable and, provided such a draft addresses the shortcomings of the WR outline, such a draft does indeed stand a chance for acceptance in Cantuar’s eyes.

In your understanding of the discussions, which do you believe is ++Williams’ position? Or is there perhaps a 3rd view I haven’t thought of?

Antique,

Your Option #2 seems closer to what he was saying than #1.  I must stress, though, that he did not in any way discuss the merits of the draft Covenant as proposed by the Primates and being debated today, nor did he outline what he finds objectionable in the Windsor Report’s version.  But the implication seems to be that he finds some improvement in today’s draft; although, he seems to be fully aware that it will be refined by the processes underway.  I must also stress that I haven’t looked at the Windsor Report in a while, so I will not engage in any speculation as to what he liked and what he didn’t.  I suggest you don’t either.

Trinitymatthew,

Thank you for the clarification of your understanding. With respect to your final comment to me:

I will not engage in any speculation as to what he liked and what he didn’t.  I suggest you don’t either.

That sounds rather like an admonishment. I was only trying to understand what you were writing. I wasn’t trying to debate anything with you nor challenge you, the meeting with the students, nor Cantuar. I sought only to understand your words better. If I gave the impression I was attacking you in any way, I most hearily apologize.

Too much time on the blog….  I was not in any way admonishing you, Antique, or anyone.  Simply urging us all—myself included—out of the arena of speculation which can be so alluring.  As I think we have learned over the past several years, trying to read the mind of Rowan Williams is an exercise in futility and just raises our individual and communal blood pressure.

I, too, think it wise to not jump to conclusions based on this report.  But Our Gracious Lord of Canterbury may want to clarify his remarks.

Where on where is John Wayne when you need him?

“Rowan is coming to America to accept the terms the US bishops will dictate to him.  If you believe any other ‘solution’ is coming I’ve got a bridge to sell you.”

No, ECUSA’s bishops will not dictate to Abp. Williams. But we do have reason for concern that he will, in his ingenuous way, offer gratuitous words of encouragement and accommodation.

As for that bridge, which one and how much?

A question on covenants.  There have been at least three different kinds of options discussed:  A confessional covenant, based on agreed upon doctrine A covenant based on praxis, the liturgy and the “prayers” and A covenant based on mission.  When we talk about covenant and the +++Rowan, are we talking about all three, two our three one of three?  Is so which ones and what is/are the argument/s that support/s the notion/s of covenant?  In addition, does the GS have one that is different from the North and so basically different that a compromise can not be worked out?

Hi EmilyH

EmilyH asked about which of the three types of covenants were on the table…of course, we are talking about a confessional covenant that only the orthodox would be willing to sign…thus requiring liberals to repent and join us…I know that isn’t what Emily wants to hear, but a covenant based on mission would be problematic because the purpose of mission is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and since we have two different versions of the gospel we certainly wouldn’t want to create any environment that would give the other side an opening to further spread their gospel…of course I doubt that the ABC would agree with my definition of covenant, but I bet the GS would.  On the issue of a covenant based on praxis, the liturgy and the “prayers” with praxis defined as…Praxis is a complex activity by which individuals create culture and society, and become critically conscious human beings. Praxis comprises a cycle of action-reflection-action which is central to liberatory education. Characteristics of praxis include self-determination (as opposed to coercion), intentionality (as opposed to reaction), creativity (as opposed to homogeneity), and rationality (as opposed to chance)...the very definition implies that something doesn’t qualify if it is orthodox…such a covenant might be viewed as acceptable for a secondary relationship for those not in communion with the main body…for example if the ABC wanted to maintain some form of relationship with ECUSA outside the Anglican Communion that left the door open for some dialogue, that would certainly be acceptable provided that the separation between those inside and outside the main covenant were clear…

EmilyH, you can download the covenant draft and judge for yourself here:

http://www.aco.org/commission/d_covenant/index.cfm

I’m not sure this draft fits in any of those three categories.

Hmmm.  The covenant is Dead on Arrival.  Let it be buried in a common grave with the Windsor Report.  Praise God!  This is the Lord’s doing and it is wondrous to behold.

A suggestion to StandFirm administrators… perhaps you might want to update the original post with a link to Trinity Matthew’s eyewitness account.  It seems some commenters are continuing to react hotly to the original article and would benefit from reading the comments above from someone who was there.

Thanks TrinityMatthew for your comments and helping put this article in a much clearer context.

Dear Trinitymatthew,

I have absolutely no connection to Stand Firm other than as one who makes an occasional comment and one who donates a (very) small amount to help keep the dialog going. I did, however, want to comment on your concerns about posting here and I thank you for overcoming that reticence.

The ability to speak out without hesitation and without fear of reprisal or of life itself is something no Christian should ever take for granted. The persecution of our Savior taught us that. The martyrdom of believers continually reinforces it.

Some of the most horrific wars in the past two millennia have been Christian against Christian. Thank God for most of its 40+ year history, our current intra-Anglican debate over the authority of the Scriptures v individual freedoms has been one of words. Many of those words have been passionate on both sides of the issue and, yes, some have been rude, sarcastic, demeaning and even racist in tone. Only recently has the disagreement turned more and more to the hostile actions of civil lawsuits, inhibitions, spurious presentments, etc. 

The conflict facing those who provide blogs such as Stand Firm is where, if anywhere, to draw the line. Here, if they err, it is on the side of allowing freedom of expression to both reasserter <u> and </u> reappraiser. On many other blogs, dissent is handled in a very clean and sanitary fashion—the “offending” comment is excised and the writer banned. Here, while some responses are less-than-polite and some even descend further, at lease the minority (on this site) viewpoint is heard.

Bob
______________

All I hope is that we refrain from personal ridicule. However, Trinitymatthew, I must confess some reservations about allowing participation of a member of the radical “Μετ Αγωνα Στεφανος” gang let alone one who represents that extremely warlike Trin unicorn. but welcome anyway.

Oops, I’m sorry, that tongue was supposed to be firmly planted in cheek, not sticking out. Around these parts, the condition is known, respectfully, as “sarahheyism”

The covenant is Dead on Arrival.  Let it be buried in a common grave with the Windsor Report

Well, this isn’t entirely accurate given what TrinityMatthew is reporting.

But, just a thought - Badger’s allusion to common graves reminded me of my visit to Dachau and to the burial scene at the end of the movie Glory.  Those in the common graves are often nobler, by comparison, than those who did the burying.

Irenaeus,

They have already delivered the diktat, that much is clear.  Offered an up or down proposition they told ++rowan that the proposal was unacceptable and that he needed to come hear their voice.  Hear he come on bended knee after having said no.  What message did they send him to make him come so trembling.

The bridge, why sir nothing but the best for you.  You surely don’t want the Brooklyn one, I’ll sell you the GW for just $2.5 billion.

RSB

Prompted by livingus’ skepticism of the radical “Μετ Αγωνα Στεφανος” gang , a Trinity College cheer seems in order…

Salterrae
Who are we?
We are the Salt of the Earth,
So give ear to us!
No new ideas shall ever come near to us!
Orthodox! Catholic!
Crammed with Divinity!
Damn the dissenters,
Hurrah for old Trinity!

RS Bunker: Wow! A leveraged buyout of the George Washington Bridge! Can my engineers begin a preliminary inspection next Monday.

PS: If I give you and yours free lifetime bridge passes, will you throw in the Little Red Lighthouse?

Irenaeus

Sale is “as is”.  As long as you fork over the green I’ll write you a deed to whatever you want.

RSB

How many draft covenants have been proposed to the ABC?  Who has proposed them? When were they proposed?

There are a t least two.  One offered by CofE re-asserters, the group from Anglican Mainstream.  It might still show up on Fulcrum’s site or another othodox site.  +NT Wright actually shredded it.  Then I think the AAC offered one and then there is the Drexel Gomez, Radner et alia one.  All of these three are “confessional” in tone and content.

After TEC is booted out of the Communion (if that ever happens), the next one to get the heave ho should be Rowan Williams.  What a sorry excuse for an ABC.

and then there is the Drexel Gomez, Radner et alia one.

Drexel Gomez, Radner, et alia are perhaps better known as the Covenant Design Group of the Anglican Communion, and their draft was the working document in Dar Es Salaam.  Available from the Anglican Communion’s website:
http://www.aco.org/commission/d_covenant/downloads.cfm

I’ll tell you something about the “meeting by invitation only” that Rowan had with Trin and Wycliffe students: the phrase “Peter Akinola’s enthusiastic (as well as repulsive, while we’re at it) support for gay-progrom proposal of law”  never, ever came up.

Or did it?

TrinityMatthew,

Thank you for your report and for the Cheer.  I would respond with my Year Cheer, but I fear it is a bit salacious and would get me banned from this blog.  But how about this,

Trinity, Trinity, Rah!

Trinity 8T1

It is difficult to tell which Covenant draft the ABC was referring to so I am not going to jump to any conclusions and pray that God will guide the Archbishop of Cantebury to uphold the Faith.

And then there is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1767470620070417

The AOC suggests that the main point of the verses is that we are simply unable to be righteous on their own, which sets up Paul’s proclamation of justification of both Jew and Gentile through faith and that we cannot point to one sin in another without examining ourselves.

Fair enough.

But he also acknowledges that Paul and his readers clearly agreed that homosexuality was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.” 

The revisinists claim Paul and his readers were wrong due to an incomplete understanding of human sexuality and physiology.  Some of Williams early writings suggest sympathy with that position.

I deeply regret that the Anglican debate to be characterized as a debate over the treatment of gays and lesbians.  The identity of Christ, his atoning death, the physical resurrection and the authority of Holy Scripture are the real issues, and the ones worth fighting over. TEC’s innovations regarding sexual morality are simply a political byproduct of a deeper bankruptcy.

I deeply regret that the Anglican debate to be characterized as a debate over the treatment of gays and lesbians.  The identity of Christ, his atoning death, the physical resurrection and the authority of Holy Scripture are the real issues, and the ones worth fighting over. TEC’s innovations regarding sexual morality are simply a political byproduct of a deeper bankruptcy.

How true Timothy; the real issues, at least in TEC, go back to GC1976 when the decisions were made that set us on this path to begin with.

A potentially rich batch of Anglican fudge in that last link.  However, I do agree with ABp Williams’s interpretation that Christians should not condemn other Christians.  Judgment is the province of God alone, as the Gospels constantly state.

That being said, there is a big difference between one Christian condemning another’s sins in a heretical act of assuming God’s mantle and saying that the Church may not condemn sin.  The whole point of the Church is to teach God’s message, even if that message includes condemnation of sin.  If he thinks that we should not condemn sinners as mere mortals but that the Church must still teach the Word of God, that is exactly the message that Jesus taught.

If he says we should all chalk it up to a big old “who knows, let’s sing Kumbaya,” well, that is one big old problem.  The Church turns into an expensive episcopal jamboree. 

Agree with Trinitymatthew—Rowanology is a hopeless task.

Last I heard, we are NOT “condemning” other christians.  We are, however, refusing to allow them to become leaders in the church.

Why is that wrong?  We do not believe that the lifestyle is in agreement with scripture.  They twist scripture to make it so.

WHY, should we allow someone who twists scripture, (or at least we believe they do) to lead a church that is supposedly based on scriptural belief.

That is NOT condemning!

Are homsexual behaviourists Christians?  That is indeed between them and God.  All we can do is tell them what the scripture and the Church says.  What they do with it is up to them.

I think this just shows that Williams views himself as just a mediator.  Throw a bone to both sides, discuss the general importance of repentence, and avoid saying anything clear.  He’s probably right that he is playing with fire any way he cuts it and is going to go along with wherever the crowd goes in the end. 

Really, it’s going to be up to the primates.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the Standing Committee of the primates comes up with a compromise position that throws out the primatial vicar or maybe substitutes it with some sort of very watered down idea that does not upset bishops too much, and lowers the bar by just saying that the bishops agree as a house not to approve SSB (saying nothing about local priests) and to let it go to GC09.  The HOB will agree, and that will be the compromise position to send back to the primates.  This very well may peel off enough primates to prevent kicking out TEC, or it may not. 

Note also that a bare majority of primates kicking out TEC would similarly do tremendous damage to the bonds of affection in a group that has always attempted to act by consensus.  If there is not a strong consensus to do something, then the swing votes will probably not side with dramatic action like kicking TEC out of the Communion.  Lots of primates are sure also to be thinking about protecting their own turf, as well, instead of ceding sovereignty to a primatial council governed by a fairly short communique.

The problem is that every one of them knows that their reputation is on the line here.  They made clear, unequivocal statements at Dar es Salaam, and to fudge on that would be humiliating to the Communion.  (Also Lambeth 1.10.) 

I think that if the PV is set up between now and September, then the orthodox line is set.  All the primates have to do is say that the PV is the new American communion, and it’s a clean switch.  If there is nothing in place, no one knows how a new church would be set up, and it’s a lot more comfortable to avoid dramatic action, kick the can down the road with a vague statement about broken bonds of affection, and to preserve each primate’s autonomy.

I know predictions aren’t worth a cup of coffee and a donut, but I think that the future of the Communion will be decided based on whether the PV gets set up between now and Sep. 30—that it all comes down to that.  Take that for what little it’s worth.

Grandmother,you’re a lady after my own heart .
One of the things I learned early in my own Christian experience and education(B.S. in Christian Min.,M.A. in Biblical Studies,M.Div Cand.)was that the best way to interpret Scripture is in the light of coherance with other Scripture.For instance,I find myself curious as to how that interpretation might float,in say,the light of Romans 13:12-14 or 1 Cor.5 or 6:8-11.
I’ve been reading Bonnell Spencer’s We Are The Body and was reading about Pope Honorius’ being condemned as a heretic and I was struck by this comment:‘Honorius was a heretic not because he officially taught false doctrine,but because he failed to declare the truth when called upon to do so.‘p.128
I believe better of Abp Williams but it’s my prayer history doesn’t repeat itself.

Leo,

You seem to express some special knowledge about this event.  Were you there?  I was there the whole time and did not hear any mention of the Archbishop of Nigeria, nor any other church leader by name, whether liberal, conservative, or in between.

I would also like to share with inquiring minds that while some questions considered the current state of affiars, most of the questions posed to the Archbishop at the “invitation-only” session with students and faculty had nothing to do with the controversial issues of the day.  Rather, he answered questions about the challenges of theological education today, church planting in England and North America, women’s ordination in other parts of the world, Russain Orthodox theology, the Trinity, the role of bishops in the church, and why he is not Roman Catholic.  This proves, as a friend of mine noted, that there are other issues on the minds of today’s divinity students besides sex and schism.

By the way, Williams is the fourth Archbishop of Canterbury to devlier a Larkin-Stuart Lecture at Trinity College.  He was preceded by Runcie, Ramsey, and Coggan. His lecture on reading scripture was a public event open to anyone who could fit in the auditorium.  Questions were also fielded there; although, they had to written out on cards and were subject to approval by Trinity’s Dean of Divinity and Wycliffe’s Principal.  These questions came from both right and left, but were mostly focused on issues raised in the lecture.

You know, I have been comparing the ABC to Chamberlain.  I am now convinced that a more apt comparison would be to Yassir Arafat - a man who says one thing to one group and the opposite to another.  Whether you are a reasserter or a reappraiser, this is pretty infuriating.

Brian - it’s not often that I agree with you, but, hey, I agree with you!

I am not that young that I can just sit here and watch this continuous string of Anglican Weasel-ing, month after month, year after year.  We all know who the Head Weasel is, and that does not instill a whole lot of confidence in me that sticking to a religious organization with such an individual at its head is going to be fruitful or blessed.  At this point, at least for me, I am going to see what, if anything, the Global South Primates do in September, even if it is just a few of them.  Brothers and Sisters, I am looking for ONE GOOD MAN to be our Shepherd Primate in the end.  One who will not bend or break ..... One who will Stand Firm for our Ancient Faith.  And I am now fully convinced that the only way to save any semblance of Anglicanism is to Cast Off this entire accumulated host of Anglo-Weasels, starting at the top, and start all over again.

Mere Christian,
Let the congregation say AMEN!

Mere Christian,

You’ll probably find one to four who will, however it’ll be hard to call themselves Anglican if 34 on one side 4 on another (thinking that some sympathetic would remain) if the majority are in communion with CofE and the majority are not. Depending on other politics this could get stranger. Lord have mercy.

You know, I have been comparing the ABC to Chamberlain.  I am now convinced that a more apt comparison would be to Yassir Arafat - a man who says one thing to one group and the opposite to another.  Whether you are a reasserter or a reappraiser, this is pretty infuriating.

Wow, this is a red letter day! I actually, at least partially, agree with Brian from T19 about something! I’m not sure about the Yassir Arafat comparison, though. IMO, +++Rowan is a theological and political chameleon. His colors change based on who he is talking with. This would have served him well in the old pre-internet days but now that we have the ability to compare his various positions almost instantly, it is a failed and infuriating strategy.

Another thing: +++Rowan is not stupid. He has the ability to speak clearly and unambiguously if he so desires. He doesn’t because he knows if he can keep the waters muddied with his exasperating double and triplespeak Anglobabble for long enough, he may not have to climb down off his fence and actually take a final stand.

Having said that, maybe (hope springs eternal) he will surprise me. He has before, if only mildly.

the snarkster

Trin Matthew,
I can believe that Trinity students are capable of rising above sex arguments, particularly when Cantuar is in town.
But I certainly hope they are not willing to rise above the fact of the Church of Nigeria’s ongoing support for a piece of legislation that makes criminals out of gay people.
Which, come think of it, is probably a bit more of a pressing issue than, say, the alleged success of western church planting schemes.
Funny that Rowan himself may find more time for the latter, and none at all that we can account for the former, whether within the Trin-cozy environment of passionate theological learning and social justice numbness or from afar in Lambeth Palace -where it only took him 48 hours or less before reacting to TEC HoB’s response to the Primates Comunique.
No I was not there. But it is not hard to guess. Rowan has shown quite some consistency in ignoring the whole Nigerian-gay-hate-law issue altogether.

Leo,

The situation in Nigeria was not discussed, and it is indeed a distressing situation.  But that is not to say that questions challenging the Archbishop’s position were not posed.  I and a few other “liberals” or “reasserters” or whatever, both students and faculty from Trinity, asked questions that were challenging of the current state of things and his leadership.  So to suggest that Trinity people might be too cozy with power or unconcerned with social justice is not correct. Some of us are deeply concerned.  In fact, if I dare say so, the two MOST challenging questions were posed by a Trinity faculty member and myself.  Both of us had publicly objected to Williams being offered an honorary degree from Trinity because of the stands he has taken, which we believe to be inconsistent with the liberal catholic values of the Faculty of Divinity. Nevertheless, we were respectful of the man and his office. 

I should note that this event was held at Wycliffe College, the majority of the people there were from that side of Hoskin Ave. (the widest street in Anglicanism), many of the questions also came from them, and they tended to focus more on church-planting issues and the challenges of theological education today.  The challenging questions, with the exception of a question on the acceptance of women’s ordination in other parts of the world, came from Trinity people.

This clarification won’t satisfy you, perhaps, and we can’t go back and change what was asked.  But I do believe that over the course of this trip Williams has encountered some of the views of liberal, progressive clergy and laity that perhaps he isn’t hearing with such clarity elsewhere.

I meant to say “reappraisers” in the above.  I hate these stupid labels….

This has resulted in a vehicle with three steering wheels: TECusaCORP steering left, the GS steering right, and the ABC trying to steer down the center. The result is going to be a wreck due to lack of steering control.

Thanks Snarkster for bringing this situation to everybody’s attention.  The seriously out-of-alignment wheels are wasting precious fuel and the smoking tires are polluting the air.  Mistreatment of the environment is un-Christian behavior.

I have checked with others who were present at the talk given to students by Rowan Williams.  They completely corroborate TrinityMatthew’s account regarding the “covenant”:  RW apparently expressed reservations about the Windsor Report’s “draft covenant” found in the Report’s Appendix, indicating that it took a “too legalistic” approach to an Anglican Covenant.  He had nothing at all to say about the Proposed Covenant presented to the Primates at Dar es Salaam, and now being discussed in the Communion.  The newspaper article was, at best, completely misleading. 

Regarding the Covenant Design’s Proposed Covenant, I have been told by Primates who were present at Dar es Salaam, that Williams was generally positive, at least to the point of concurring that the proposal was sufficiently acceptable as to be disseminated for discussion within the Communion at large, and thereby made the basis for whatever revision would come before the 2008 Lambeth Conference.

I hate these stupid labels….

Trinitymatthew:  Hate is not a family value!

Mere Christian said,

I am not that young that I can just sit here and watch this continuous string of Anglican Weasel-ing, month after month, year after year.  We all know who the Head Weasel is . . .

I am reminded of John Henry Newman’s lament, which, if memory serves was

“Oh, Pusey! We have leaned on our Bishops and they have broken down under us!”

I think it’s best not to lean on Bishops too much.