Eames Commission may miss deadline

Unprecedented challenges face the Eames Commission, said the Archbishop of Canterbury at the opening of General Synod in central London.

On the outskirts of London the Commission set up to help the Anglican Communion either stay together or separate amicably in the wake of the consecration of a gay bishop was also beginning its work.

An insider on the Commission, chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames, recently told The Church of England Newspaper that the scale of the task was huge and it was unlikely that a report could be issued by the September deadline set by the emergency Primates’ Meeting in October. Instead an interim report is likely to be issued.

With increasing numbers of Primates and Provinces declaring themselves to be in a state of impaired communion with the American Church as a result of the consecration of a practising homosexual, the Commission is already facing limited choices.

At least one-third of the Primates have already indicated their support for a new Network of conservative Anglicans in the United States which represents a church within a church. The network is also seeking ‘adequate Episcopal oversight' for evangelical and traditionalist congregations in liberal American dioceses.

In answer to questions at General Synod the Archbishop of Canterbury said he looked sympathetically at the creation of such a network to keep Episcopalians within the Episcopal Church of the USA.

Dr Williams told Synod: “We do, as a Communion, face perhaps unprecedentedly difficult challenges and it’s all the more important that we keep those involved in these discussions – in controversy and also in the work of the commission – in our prayers to equip all of us in the Communion for the task that lies before us.”

But he said that it was inappropriate to second-guess the recommendations of the Commission “on these large issues of communion, maintenance of communion and breakage of communion.”

But his aim, he declared, was for a ‘shared future’ for Anglicans, “so far as is possible.”

Dr Williams also told Synod members that he would not give his permission for Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire, to exercise Episcopal functions in the Church of England. But he failed to reassure traditionalist members of Synod that those bishops who took part in the consecration, including Presiding Bishop of the USA, would also be barred from ministry in the Church of England.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments come at a time of tensions over issues of sexuality in the Church of England itself.

On Tuesday the lobbying group Inclusive Church, set up as a result of anger over the mishandling of the appointment of Canon Jeffrey John to Reading, handed over a petition to a member of the Archbishop’s staff. The petition, with 8,500 signatures and the support of about 100 parochial church councils, calls for the ministries of the Church to be open to all regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.

But the Chairman of Inclusive Church, Dr Giles Fraser, spelt out the message: “The Archbishop must resist those bent on dividing the Church as an authentic response to the consecration of bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire.”

Or they'll .... what?

See, this is the problem faced by people like Giles Fraser: if we look at this statement objectively -- and if most of the Communion rejects the consecration of Gene Robinson -- what are they going to do about it? Fraser's going-in assumption is that the Church is supposed to accept pretty much anything, so long as he, Giles Fraser, is for it. If the church rejects it, Giles Fraser can either accept it, or he can start his own church. Or, he can hope we lose sight of the real issues, so that he can sneak his agenda in by a side door.

Orthodox folks never seem to realize that it's really easy to stop people like Giles Fraser, simply by saying "No." Unfortunately, saying "no," and making it stick, sometimes feels hard on our consciences.

Sometimes it's because we're actually wrong when we say "no." We rightly fear that, and Fraser's crowd is playing on our fear of our own pridefulness. This approach is especially effective when we don't understand the reasons and implications underlying the "yes" or "no" answers for an issue.

However, once one really understands the issue, then "No" is the easiest thing in the world to say.

The task for the orthodox is to bring people to those understandings, even though most people very much want to avoid such discussions at all costs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.