Dear sionnsar,
This article reinforces my belief that the pagans won this round, and likely the whole fight.
It seems that the pagans have been asked not participate in a particular communion entity, albeit an important one, but maintain communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the entire Anglican Communion. Approved, I assume, by a significant majority of Primates, it appears that this will be the status quo until the next Lambeth Conference, three years from now.
Thus, the pagans get to keep their homosexual bishop, haven't really promised not to do it again (the report urges others to urge them not to do it again), and get to stay in the communion at least three more years.
During that time, they are to answer the questions of the Windsor Report, but as far as I can tell, I'm not sure that there are any agreed-to standards as to what are acceptable answers.
Finally, through all the next three years, time passes, and what was done will become an artifact of history.
In three years' time, the pagans will say, "Look, you've accepted communion with us and our homosexual bishop for four or five years, now. It would be precipitous and uncharitable to break communion with us now. Your vote to permit us to stay in the communion while we discussed these matters was, essentially, a vote of accepting us in that state, in communion with you. There is no reason to now exclude us when previously you included us."
It seems to me that whatever support there was for taking decisive action will be at least somewhat dissipated by 2008.
Am I missing something, here?
sitetest
sitetest, yes, there is something not stated here. First off, there is this posting: Church remains at risk of schism on homosexuality, warns Williams.
But in response to your question I will post another article illustrating how ECUSA & New Westminster are not going to amend their ways one bit. The final showdown has been postponed for now, but it be all the stronger for it.
15. In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003 (xii). Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.
Sitetest,
PMJI, but I don't think the prospect is quite so bleak. First, because there are still many very faithful Anglicans within the Episcopal church, if the Communion as a whole were to exclude the entire group from communion it would affect many who completely disagree with the ECUSA's revisionist leadership. Part of the genius of this, I believe, is that it is very strong in its exclusion of the leadership (Griswold and his minions) but considering paragraph 15 it will take very seriously the concerns of pastoral oversight of dissenting parishes (mostly conservative). Again, had they cut off the entire ECUSA, the AbC and the communion as a whole would have no claim to pastoral oversight, leaving many faithful 'uncovered' so to speak.
As for the 'get your act together before Lambeth' issue, some of that has to do with realities of Episcopal polity. None of the organizations referred to as 'instruments of unity' has any genuine legislative power. However, as the largest and most representative of the Instruments, the Lambeth Conference has the most weight. In 1998 they overwhelmingly reaffirmed traditional views of human sexuality and I seriously doubt that would change b/n now and 2008.
So, the ECUSA has to get its act together. Individual parishes now have an opportunity to define their position. There will probably be a split, with some parishes siding with the Primates (and thus the whole Anglican Communion) and others will stand with the revisionists. At least, over the next three years, itwill become clearer where everyone stands.
On the downside, there will be significant battles over property inn the next few years. Ugly disputes which will damage the witness, but at the end of the day, I think there will be a more unified (clarified) Anglican presence in the United States. Whether it goes under the name of ECUSA or not, isn't really a problem for me.
Yes, the 'pagans' will try to make the claim you describe. It is their typical ploy. but Lambeth will have none of it. The orthodox values of the Global South and the faithful in the rest of the Anglican world are on the ascendancy.
At least that's my two cents.
"Am I missing something, here?"
Nope. If I may be so bold as to put a few words into your mouth: root the evil out NOW, don't tolerate it for three seconds, much less three years.
May it be so.