Read it all here. An excellent overview of where we are, and where we might be heading. Pace folks like Father Matt Kennedy, who are apoplectic over the Lambeth Invitations, under the assumption that an invitation to Lambeth constitutes membership in the Communion, Mr. Hylden clearly lays out the thinking behind Archbishop Rowan's actions to date (if ArchBp. Rowan hasn't laid them out clearly enough himself hitherto), actions which are NOT merely placating of TEC and her heresies.
The idea all along is that the ratification of the forthcoming Covenant, once it has cleared Lambeth and the Anglican Consultative Council, will determine which Provinces will contitute the Anglican Communion from now on (not Lambeth Invitations; not some fiat from Cantuar or the Primates). What the most belicose of the conservatives fail to recognize is that TEC's actions hitherto HAVE, in point of fact, been within the bounds of our ecclesial life in the Anglican Communion. The most fundamental problem to date is how the bounds of our ecclesial life in the Anglican Communion have (and have not) been set -- not with TEC's actions per se. (TEC's actions ARE problematical, but only because the bounds of our ecclesial life have permitted those actions. Hence the bounds are the more fundamental problem.) The Covenant is meant to address this most fundamental problem.
If things fall apart before Lambeth and many the Belicose Conservatives (e.g. Nigeria) don't turn up, then the Covenant (and the future Communion) will be handed to the liberals on a silver platter. As Mr. Hylden writes:
The idea all along is that the ratification of the forthcoming Covenant, once it has cleared Lambeth and the Anglican Consultative Council, will determine which Provinces will contitute the Anglican Communion from now on (not Lambeth Invitations; not some fiat from Cantuar or the Primates). What the most belicose of the conservatives fail to recognize is that TEC's actions hitherto HAVE, in point of fact, been within the bounds of our ecclesial life in the Anglican Communion. The most fundamental problem to date is how the bounds of our ecclesial life in the Anglican Communion have (and have not) been set -- not with TEC's actions per se. (TEC's actions ARE problematical, but only because the bounds of our ecclesial life have permitted those actions. Hence the bounds are the more fundamental problem.) The Covenant is meant to address this most fundamental problem.
If things fall apart before Lambeth and many the Belicose Conservatives (e.g. Nigeria) don't turn up, then the Covenant (and the future Communion) will be handed to the liberals on a silver platter. As Mr. Hylden writes:
In light of all this, one might think that orthodox Anglicans would by now have embraced the covenant process the way a drowning man grasps a life preserver—and indeed, many prominent conservatives, represented most ably by Archbishop Gomez and the theologians of the Anglican Communion Institute, have done so. But not everyone has. In fact, it may turn out to be the case that many Anglican conservatives will soon decide to abandon the Lambeth Conference and the covenant process altogether, tipping the vote count leftward and thereby allowing the liberals, quite improbably, to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
2 comments:
WB,
I'm quite clear on what you mean by this:
"TEC's actions hitherto HAVE, in point of fact, been within the bounds of our ecclesial life in the Anglican Communion"
It seems to me that this is only true with a good bit of casuistry that prefers to focus merely on legalities. To me, ecclesial life implies a good bit more?
Also, it seems to me that the whole Windsor covenant scenario is a bit on the idealistic side at this point, which isn't to say that it would be for the best to let it play out and not have dioceses jumping ship and provinces boycotting Lambeth etc... My thinking on this is along the lines of Bp John Rodgers, who recently wrote an essay pointing out why he thinks the approach to drafting a covenenat is wrong-headed, amongst other reasons for the simple fact that Anglicans already have a covenant, ie the formularies: the BCP 1662, the Ordinal, and the 39 articles all under the authority of scripture as recieved in the first centuries of the undivided Church.
Michael R
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
"When good men do nothing, they are no longer good. Many have the mistaken notion that good is merely the absence of doing that which is wrong. Not so! One is good not merely because he does no evil, but because he is actively working for what is good. "Let him eschew evil, and do good" (1 Pet. 3:11). James explained, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17).
So..."global south" get in there and DO something!
Post a Comment