Its purpose can scarcely be to tell members of TEC to remain steady on the tack they are sailing. Nor is it a private letter remonstrating directly to the ABC, or even the other primates. My sense is that it is a letter intended to tell the wider Anglican world that there is good reason for TEC being where it is at, and thus unfairness and misrepresentation in the Pentecost letter. A letter, then, from the PB intended to persuade fair-minded observers that TEC is worthy of full involvement in every part of the Communion's life.
If this is its purpose, does it achieve it? Does it provide a strong case for denying the validity of the ABC's conclusion to his Pentecost letter?
What do you think?
In another post I shall offer answers to these questions.
1 comment:
The error about Scotland is corrected here:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_122615_ENG_HTM.htm
I’m sure it’s no surprise to our friends Down Under, and elsewhere, that I think that the Presiding Bishop has hit the nail on the head. Make no mistake about it, this is a public rebuke to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is a “line in the sand” as they say. It articulates what many Anglicans and others--(Old Catholics, Lutherans, etc.) and not just American Episcopalians--have been feeling for some time.
Kurt Hill
In summer-like (84F/28.8C) Brooklyn, NY
Post a Comment