We have followed closely the events at Lambeth. We have been pleased at the regular meetings of Communion Partner Bishops together with English Bishops and key Global South Primates. Much hard work and prayerful cooperation was in evidence and we thank God for that.
In a telephone interview yesterday with the New York journal "First Things," the topic was general accomplishments of the conference. Here are several things noted:
1. The presence of Global South Primates and their final statement, indicating support for the Windsor Continuation Group's work. This is a crucial statement as it signals support for Communion processes. Their support of the Archbishop of Canterbury was also underscored. We are grateful for the leadership of Archbishop John Chew and Presiding Bishop Mouneer Anis, and their colleagues.
2. The call from the Archbishop of Canterbury for a Primates Meeting in 2009. This will determine where the wider communion is and how broadly support for the Instruments remains. We hope all Primates will be present and that the work of the Communion will continue in these challenging days. If there is to be a Faith and Order committee of some description, as suggested, the input of the Primates into this important initiative is critical.
3. The endorsement from the Archbishop of Canterbury of the Covenant Process, Lambeth 1.10, Communion Partners, and a Pastoral Forum. In several public statements he clarified considerably his own view on the teaching of the church in the area of human sexuality, and was clearer about the consequence of pressing forward with departures from that teaching. In our view, this indicates a realism about the probability of Bishops and Dioceses moving forward with same-sex blessings in a more concerted manner. Already we are seeing news reports to that effect.
4. We welcome the call for moratoria and the timing of these, as this places the matter firmly before the Communion as a totality. What individual Bishops and Dioceses now choose to do will be in the light of this wider Communion gathering. At issue, we surmise, will be the sense of a common mind within the House of Bishops of TEC itself, in view of the Lambeth Conference and anticipated efforts to move ahead against the direction set there.
5. The Indaba format, whatever its shortcomings, allowed Bishops from North America the daily experience of rubbing elbows and praying with a majority of Bishops from parts of the world with far more sever challenges, and to hear of the effect of decisions made in the US and Canada on them and their churches.
6. The call for the covenant to be something individual dioceses can signal support for. ACI raised this question in New York with Gregory Cameron in the Spring, following his enthusiastic account of its merits and why TEC should endorse the covenant. Obviously there are grave doubts about that, and whilst it is clear why the provinces are the point of contact, Canon Cameron allowed that if TEC should choose not to join the covenant, or put the decision off, the larger communion would indeed be concerned to allow individual dioceses inclusion. Communion Partner bishops reiterated that concern at Lambeth.
Many developments will of course determine the next phases of our Communion life, measured against what has been undertaken in Kent. If individual Bishops press ahead with same-sex blessings, or consecrations of the sort in New Hampshire are forthcoming, as many anticipate, this will serve as a proxy within the US and Canada. It is crucial to have Lambeth and especially the Archbishop's own clear statements against which to view the next developments.
Finally, we are not clear what the concept of a 'escrow' plan is and who it would be designed to support. It is also unclear what the Gafcon gathering and the call for a Council to consider a new province in the US actually entails. There was no discussion of this latter development at Lambeth. Perhaps this will be taken up at the next Primates Meeting, or in back channels leading up to that. Some associated with Gafcon describe it as a structure with its own integrity independent of the Instruments of Communion (hence, its own Council), whilst others speak of it as only a broad movement. It will be important to see these matters clarified.
This summary is undertaken in the context of other commitments and intends only to make some initial observations. ACI will make further comment in the days to come.
Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
ACI
In a telephone interview yesterday with the New York journal "First Things," the topic was general accomplishments of the conference. Here are several things noted:
1. The presence of Global South Primates and their final statement, indicating support for the Windsor Continuation Group's work. This is a crucial statement as it signals support for Communion processes. Their support of the Archbishop of Canterbury was also underscored. We are grateful for the leadership of Archbishop John Chew and Presiding Bishop Mouneer Anis, and their colleagues.
2. The call from the Archbishop of Canterbury for a Primates Meeting in 2009. This will determine where the wider communion is and how broadly support for the Instruments remains. We hope all Primates will be present and that the work of the Communion will continue in these challenging days. If there is to be a Faith and Order committee of some description, as suggested, the input of the Primates into this important initiative is critical.
3. The endorsement from the Archbishop of Canterbury of the Covenant Process, Lambeth 1.10, Communion Partners, and a Pastoral Forum. In several public statements he clarified considerably his own view on the teaching of the church in the area of human sexuality, and was clearer about the consequence of pressing forward with departures from that teaching. In our view, this indicates a realism about the probability of Bishops and Dioceses moving forward with same-sex blessings in a more concerted manner. Already we are seeing news reports to that effect.
4. We welcome the call for moratoria and the timing of these, as this places the matter firmly before the Communion as a totality. What individual Bishops and Dioceses now choose to do will be in the light of this wider Communion gathering. At issue, we surmise, will be the sense of a common mind within the House of Bishops of TEC itself, in view of the Lambeth Conference and anticipated efforts to move ahead against the direction set there.
5. The Indaba format, whatever its shortcomings, allowed Bishops from North America the daily experience of rubbing elbows and praying with a majority of Bishops from parts of the world with far more sever challenges, and to hear of the effect of decisions made in the US and Canada on them and their churches.
6. The call for the covenant to be something individual dioceses can signal support for. ACI raised this question in New York with Gregory Cameron in the Spring, following his enthusiastic account of its merits and why TEC should endorse the covenant. Obviously there are grave doubts about that, and whilst it is clear why the provinces are the point of contact, Canon Cameron allowed that if TEC should choose not to join the covenant, or put the decision off, the larger communion would indeed be concerned to allow individual dioceses inclusion. Communion Partner bishops reiterated that concern at Lambeth.
Many developments will of course determine the next phases of our Communion life, measured against what has been undertaken in Kent. If individual Bishops press ahead with same-sex blessings, or consecrations of the sort in New Hampshire are forthcoming, as many anticipate, this will serve as a proxy within the US and Canada. It is crucial to have Lambeth and especially the Archbishop's own clear statements against which to view the next developments.
Finally, we are not clear what the concept of a 'escrow' plan is and who it would be designed to support. It is also unclear what the Gafcon gathering and the call for a Council to consider a new province in the US actually entails. There was no discussion of this latter development at Lambeth. Perhaps this will be taken up at the next Primates Meeting, or in back channels leading up to that. Some associated with Gafcon describe it as a structure with its own integrity independent of the Instruments of Communion (hence, its own Council), whilst others speak of it as only a broad movement. It will be important to see these matters clarified.
This summary is undertaken in the context of other commitments and intends only to make some initial observations. ACI will make further comment in the days to come.
Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
ACI
