Taonga's report begins with jaded cynics:
"Jaded cynics may try to suggest that the Anglican Communion is divided over the Bible."This "cynic" would like to suggest there is indeed a certain amount of division. Whether division over the ordination of women as bishops or why we should capture what we think the Bible means in a Covenant or whether the gospel should be preached to non-Christians ... we are divided.
The fine words in the report of the Bible reading projected, as described in Taonga's report just do not paper over the cracks. And what they do describe is a state of the play which seems at variance with Communion reality. A commenter here, Andrew Reid (who has an Austral-Middle Eastern perspective on Communion life) cites part of the Taonga article and then aptly asks,,
" "After three and half years of worldwide research, the Bible in the Life of the Church project has found that Anglicans around the globe share “a high common ground” over the essential place and use of the Bible in Anglican life."
How can a communion which can't agree on whether it is even God's Word possibly have a "high common ground"? And that's before we get onto interpretation, criticism, contextualisation etc. The authors appear to have done a thorough job in their research, but it doesn't seem to pass the common sense test. Why is our communion falling apart if we all agree on our foundational text and its meaning for us today? Why are we suing each other, refusing communion, establishing parallel structures and living by different morals if how we approach, use and apply the Bible is so similar?"
I do not want to pour cold water on things ACC seeks to celebrate but is this body living in the real politik world of global Anglican life?