Some frustrating nonsense:
“A prophet is meant to be a nuisance, asking such questions precisely when we think we have so ordered our Church, community, society or relationships as not to exclude.” So wrote Rowan Williams, eight years ago.
In contrast, the Archbishop of Canterbury has just revealed his master plan for the unity of the Anglican Communion, which - on a worst-case-scenario read - looks to be designed to exclude nuisances from the Church.
The fear that many have goes something like this: sick and tired of the conflict generated by those who recognise gay relationships as having the potential to reflect the glory of God, he is proposing a Church where all controversial theology would have to be cleared with everybody else. This would be a Church where prophecy was impossible. It wouldn’t be a biblical Church: it would be a stagnant pond.
As Dr Williams once said, biblical prophecy focuses on the prophet’s ability to see things that others don’t. The prophet points to an injustice that the community doesn’t recognise, or won’t admit to itself. And, as the prophet speaks of a community’s blindness, it sees him or her as a heretic and a troublemaker.
Read more here. There you may follow the link to the original. (Wasn't working for me.)
Okay. We, as Anglicans, value Scripture and Tradition, right? I mean, whatever else we may value (reason, experience, etc.), we can all agree that we value and claim to be guided by Scripture and Tradition. Okay. Why should we think that a tiny (rich, white) segment of the Church gets to announce to the rest of the Church what is prophetic and what isn't? When did the Church ever operate that way? What basis or precedent is there for thinking that ECUSA gets to vet prophecy for the rest of the Communion? ECUSA drones on maddeningly about "listening processes" and what not, but absolutely refuses to listen to anyone else on the subject of ECUSA's proclamations' status as prophetic or not. "We ourselves decree it; we believe it; that settles it (for everyone)."