Posted on 10/07/2005 11:16:24 AM PDT by sionnsar
Lambeth Commission head Robin Eames wants to let bygones be bygones:
First, Windsor recommended that
"the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were beached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion." (para 134)
In my opinion the decisions of the House of Bishops in the Episcopal Church (USA) met that request. In fact looking at the precise wording of Windsor and the statements of the House of Bishops it is arguable the reaction exceeded what was asked for by the Windsor Report. They have gone so far as to express their ’repentance’ at the damage caused to the Anglican Communion by a failure to consult adequately -- a mode of language the Lambeth Commission felt unable to ask of them.
Forget those fruits worthy of repentance John the Baptist talked about; apparently, Anglican "repentance" consists of uttering the word and proceeding as if nothing had happened. Which is not too surprising since Eames admits what most of us have known for a long time. The Windsor Report was a sham.
The Lambeth Commission recognised there was genuine disagreement on the sexuality issue across our Communion and that that disagreement could not be settled easily one way or another. I have to say as Chair of the Commission that those members who held the liberal view could not have been expected to sign the Windsor Report if they had felt the Report’s conclusions meant that the debate on the Church’s attitude to human sexuality was closed. (see par 146).
And they might have to admit that they might be wrong.
In all honesty I have to say that just as this was necessary to provide a unanimous Windsor Report so if the Anglican Communion is to remain united there can be no blanket condemnation of an on-going process of discernment about the right way, under God and in the spirit of the Gospel, to accommodate the reality of faithful Christians who happen to be homosexually orientated within the life of the Communion. To do otherwise is to court schism.
So. The Lambeth Commission had to come up with something the liberals could sign in order to get a unanimous report. And it had to do that in order to avoid "schism." Which it basically has now anyway. Bet you wish you had that year back, don't you, Robbie? Although it is helpful to many of us that you've basically taken the liberal side since you feel that "there can be no blanket condemnation of an on-going process of discernment about the right way, under God and in the spirit of the Gospel, to accommodate the reality of faithful Christians who happen to be homosexually orientated."
Let me put it plainly. This is not a struggle between two north American Provinces and other Provinces.
Yes it is.
It is not a struggle between 36 Provinces and 2 on how to ’discipline’ the ’wayward’.
Is so, as the sarcasm quotes indicate.
Rather it is a struggle to discern how to meet conservative concerns for proper biblical interpretation AND liberal consensus for justice and inclusion for minorities who claim they face prejudice and discrimination.
Actually, it's an effort to square the circle and turn lead into gold.
In my many contacts on a personal level with the episcopal leadership of ECUSA since Windsor was published I am now convinced that there is a new and realistic recognition of the reactions across the Communion and an acknowledgement that actions taken in the Episcopal Church (USA) had consequences which were not adequately recognised in advance.
If Robin Eames seriously believes that ECUSA has "a new and realistic recognition of the reactions across the Communion and an acknowledgement that actions taken in the Episcopal Church (USA) had consequences which were not adequately recognised in advance," then the Primate of Ireland has blown by dishonest and taken up residence in delusional.
I must also note that there has been wide divergence of opinion as to the nature of ’regret’ to be expressed. Conservative opinion has demanded that ’regret’ should embrace not just regret for the world-wide consequences of actions in north America, but acknowledgement that the actions of ECUSA and the diocese of New Westminster, Canada, were ’wrong’. To this north America has continued to emphasise the importance of prolonged internal debate prior to those developments, in the case of ECUSA over nearly 40 years.
In other words, "what we did was wrong and we'll never do it again" versus "we're really sorry that you're bleeding so much from that knife we stuck in your back." And I thought that one of the complaints of the liberals was that Episcopalians weren't having these conversations about whether homosexual activity was a sin or not and certainly weren't "listening" to homosexuals. My bad. Robbie, however, has some more hallucinating to do.
Thirdly, paragraph 134 of Windsor recommended that
"the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges."
My reading of the Covenant of the Episcopal House of Bishops is that it exceeds what was requested of them by Windsor. Notwithstanding the fact that consents to all elections are being withheld by the House of Bishops a strict interpretation of Windsor convinces me that the American bishops have met the request of the Windsor Report.
Windsor recommended "a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges." Spoiled child that it is, ECUSA enacted a moratorium on the election of all bishops. So I guess ECUSA did exceed "what was requested of them by Windsor" although why the Archbishop considers ECUSA's unprincipled evasion praiseworthy is beyond me. Actually, it's not. But Eames is just getting warmed up.
Also relevant are the provisions of paragraphs 143 and 144 for both the American and Canadian churches in respect to public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. Paragraph 143 stated : "For thee sake of our common life, we call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorise public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions." Paragraph 144 added: "we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter."
Once again, both the bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada have in my opinion met the precise wording of Windsor. The American bishops have convenanted not to authorise such rites, or bless same-sex unions.
Although several bishops have either allowed or participated in such rites and have done so without anyone so much as frowning in their general direction.
True, the covenant only holds until General Convention has deliberated and decided on these issues, and there may be a new context to which reactions has to be made then: but the primates acknowledged their willingness to allow space for the synodical processes of the churches to work in their Dromantine statement. For the present, the Episcopal Church (USA) has fulfilled the requests of the Windsor Report in so far as their polity will allow.
In other words, not at all. Deal with it, bitches, it's in our canons. And our canons are sacrosanct except when we want to ordain women in which case our canons are so much used toilet paper.
The Canadian authorities have also now indicated their willingness to postpone decisions on these subjects until General Synod has had a chance to consider the Primate’s Theological Commission’s findings that blessings of same-sex unions are matters of doctrine, and thus subject to provincial determination, and the approval of two successive General Synods of the church. New Westminster has not applied a full moratorium on such rites, but has indicated it will go no further, whilst Bishop Michael Ingham has expressed his regret at the consequences of his actions in the manner indicated in the Windsor Report.
And the Primate of Ireland officially becomes a pathological liar. Windsor called for a "moratorium" on same-sex marriages. Says here that one of the meanings of that word is, "a suspension of an ongoing or planned activity." New Westminster, however has, by its own admission, not applied a moratorium on same-sex marriages. And such rites have gone on and no doubt continue to go on in ECUSA without sanction or censure of any kind. Yet Robin Eames thinks ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have "met the precise wording of Windsor." Eames' mendacity blows Frank Griswold's out of the water.
The reactions of the bishops of ECUSA are included in their publication ’To Set Our Hope On Christ’ and the public statements of both Canada and ECUSA, including their presentations to the ACC at Nottingham must be read in the light of the due process of both Churches. A process of reception in both Churches is continuing so far as the Windsor Report is concerned. It is not yet possible to talk of ’the final reaction’ of either to Windsor. The Synodical process of both is yet to be completed. Division remains in both Churches. The appointment by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a Panel of Reference to assist where alienation or internal division exists in terms of such as alternative episcopal oversight is a recognition of this fact. Windsor recommended a Council of Advice to support the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Primates have developed this concept and now a Panel of Reference is in operation.
And doing nothing in particular. What Eames is getting at in this paragraph, of course, is that we Anglicans will continue to do what we always do. Keep yammering until the Nazis Klansmen homophobes Bush supporters conservatives get fed up, go away and leave us alone.
Am I surprised by any of this? Of course not. Nothing these people say or do surprises me anymore. And Eames' tacit admission that the Windsor Report and the process that created it was an elaborate charade to attempt to placate the Africans is actually kind of refreshing.
What does baffle me, though, is why conservative and orthodox Anglicans insist on remaining connected to an institution that holds them in such contempt and why a split from Canterbury has been taken off the table. Rhetoric along the lines of, "We have not chosen to walk apart. They have," will no longer suffice. "They" keep getting invited to meetings, "they" keep showing up and "you" don't walk out and go home when "they" get there.
At some point, orthodox Anglicans in the United States, Canada, Britain and the rest of the world are going to have to come to terms with the blindingly obvious. Current Anglican difficulties cannot be resolved. A line is going to have to be drawn and drawn quickly. And if that line is crossed, conservative Anglicans are, if they want to preserve the orthodox Anglican tradition, going to have to shake Canterbury's dust from their feet. Or many of us will do so on our own.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. everyone knows that is, is....
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.