Baby Blue has tweeted the result of the House of Bishops consideration of D025, the resolution which signals 'full steam ahead' for the ordinations of gay and lesbian bishops: they have affirmed it, thus concurring with the House of Deputies.
This, I think, is the point of no return, the wedge that will even drive TEC apart from the C of E.
6 comments:
Peter, this demonstrates what a complete waste of time, money and grief Windsor, Dromantine, Dar es Salaam etc etc have been, along with the failure of Rowan Williams' leadership. Or worse - the trahison des clercs, because he had it his power to stop this in its tracks back in 2003 with a strong word to the American HOB, but he didn't. But how could he have acted against something he really agrees with, because he has knowingly ordained homosexuals himself?
It also shows that the 'strategy' of Tom Wright and Graham Kings('Trust us, we're the Establishment') has been completely ineffectual. They have only succeeded in dividing evangelical witness and acting as a stalking horse for liberalism.
Nazir-Ali will now step up to the plate.
Hi Anonymous
I (respectfully) disagree with you - respectfully, because I do not think one can give an unambiguous judgement on the events and people you mention.
Nevertheless Windsor etc have been right in the sense that they have offered TEC every opportunity, and then some, to back off the direction they have been taking.
Could ++RW have stopped this in its tracks in 2003? Possibly, but surely it is arguable that the answer is: if stopped in 2003, what would have happened in 2004?
I think it arguable that the 'strategy' of Wright and Kings has been effectual in this regard: they have maintained a strong diplomatic central/centrist evangelical presence in the leadership of C of E which may yet mean that ACNA is welcomed by the C of E and not just by evangelical cheerleaders.
Where I recognise a weakness in the Wright/Kings line is it's lack of recognition of the necessity of some kind of ACNA-break within North America (even as I think that line right to maintain that no such break is required in the C of E.
Will stop here without pretence that I have covered everything!
Peter, Williams invited all these double-talkers to Lambeth - the consecrators of VGR-, as well as preventing any decision making through the tactic of 'indaba' - wholly unlike any Lambeth conference before. Was it any wonder the Africans stayed away? Who's responsible for this great mess? Who undermined things all along?
You write: "I think it arguable that the 'strategy' of Wright and Kings has been effectual in this regard: they have maintained a strong diplomatic central/centrist evangelical presence in the leadership of C of E which may yet mean that ACNA is welcomed by the C of E and not just by evangelical cheerleaders."
Well, at least you apear to be edging to saying that Kings or Wright are not really 'evangelical' any more (unless 'evangelical' is a humpty Dumpty word). And why should this be a surprise? Liberal-leaning people change their convictions: the 'open evangelicals' of earlier days become 'centrist' as they enter the hierarchy, & then have to deal with all the gay clergy, esp. in cathedral chapters. This happens time & time again, even twhen they indignantly continue to lay claim to the 'evangelical' name (though they would be hard pressed to say what it means).
But the truth is, Wright and Kings have opposed ACNA and FCA. So I can't follow your resoning there.
Hi Anonymous
++Rowan could be commended for setting up a Lambeth wherein the American bishops had to, and did listen to African and Asian bishops, making them doubly culpable for nevertheless voting for the decision they have just taken re D025.
I am not in any way edging towards saying that Kings and Wright are not evangelical anymore. Such a judgement at this point in my posts is neither here nor there. I am saying that their strategy, controversial and criticised as it is, might one day be recognised as useful in enabling the C of E to hold together. But it might not ... time will tell.
Yes, Kings and Wright have been singularly unhelpful re ACNA and FCA, but I took especial note of Wright being the one who told the C of E GS that the theology of the ACNA canons and constitution was being assessed by some group of which he is a part. I hope he comes up with a positive assessment.
Peter, what Bishop Peter Broadbent says on the 'Fulcrum' website:
"There's no particular point in saying "we told you so"... but it does make the Windsor process look pretty unfit for purpose, as many of us suspected. I know it's going to play out from now on like a slow motion car crash, but I rather hope that we can be a bit more nimble footed from now on in our attempts to rescue the rest of the Anglican Communion. The "let's all wait and see what happens" approach to church brinkmanship has probably had its day. A bit like old style ecumenism, really!"
What way for ACANZ now?
Hi Anonymous
Will post upon your question!
Post a Comment