Akinola's Reponse? Zzzzzzzz
Is this strong enough for our separatists?
It is remarkable that this rebuff is so...restrained, no? Compare it to Radner, Seitz, Noll and Harding--in fact, I think Akinola should just up and Ordain all of them right away to the Episcopacy so he can finally get better help writing these things. He's still around stateside, no? If he hurries, he can beat the 9/30 deadline. I know, I know--now that would really be alot of purple; but hey, I'm not issuing an ultimatum here, OK?
While we await a meeting of all the Primates to receive and determine the adequacy of The Episcopal Church’s response it seems clear from first reading that what is offered is not a whole hearted embrace of traditional Christian teaching and in particular the teaching that is expressed in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. [my boldface type]
We're waiting for all the Primates to meet to determine the adequacy of the HoB response--note the relatively moderate conciliar tone, admitting that he--Akinola--alone is unfit to make that type of determination. Consitent with that relatively irenic, conciliar tone he uses "seems" in rebuffing it, logically leaving open space for disagreement and error on his part.
Yes, there is some immoderate hyperbole thrown around, but this stuff is trivial, unconnected:
we have looked forward with hope to the response of The Episcopal Church as requested by the Primates when we met earlier in the year in Dar es Salaam. That request was the culmination of many conversations and years of painful negotiations [about four years]
It was our expressed desire to provide one final opportunity for an unequivocal assurance.... [I guess it's an ultimatum after all]
our pleas have once again been ignored [what a goofy thing to say: so obviously false]
we have been offered is merely a temporary adjustment in an unrelenting determination [as if the HoB were some homogeneous army marching in flawless lockstep; I'm reminded of old Soviet posters extolling factory workers to unrelenting labor]
In truth, though I'm fisking the hyperbole (I'm only kind of sorry), there isn't much of it and it is much milder than I expected: like a writer using too many adjectives. It's as if there is so little substance--c'mon, of all Scripture quotes to end on, John 14:21? Isn't there something better that couldn't be so easily appropriated by his opposition? Something a tad more concrete?--what little meat he can offer up has to be dressed up with these tawdry ribbons.
Should we just blame an unusually sleepy Minns and/or Sugden, and let Akinola off the hook?
But seriously, if this missive is indicative of things to come, we have turned the corner as a Communion and may look forward to better times. I can't help but think someone here or in the CoE will lean on Akinola/Minns/et al for something with a little more fire. But maybe the fix is in, and the Separatist/Realignment program has lost the allegiance of enough CoE evangelicals to have lost its leverage over Williams. That would be news. If true, how should we best use the time?
posted by The Anglican Scotist @ 5:29 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I'm beyond the point where I find +Akinola's rhetoric even interesting anymore. I think that the HOB did a surprisingly fine job of being both obedient and yet committed to theological principles of justice. Frankly, I just feel sorry for +Akinola at this point, and for all these folks who cannot find it in their hearts to acknowledge their brothers and sisters with love. It must be frightening and lonely to be so stuck in place.
I'll second what you say.
Some day though I'd like to learn how much of the present chaos was intended and how much unintentional.
So much of what the Separation crowd has done seems off the cuff--like all these ordinations even before 9/30. What did that help? How is that conservatism, much less Christian conservatism? How could any self-respecting Anglo-catholic from Fort Worth say tolerate this sheer ecclesial chaos?
I'll bet when the fuss settles a bit, the Anglican right will need to be reconstructed from the ground up along lines of a loyal opposition.
"But maybe the fix is in, and the Separatist/Realignment program has lost the allegiance of enough CoE evangelicals to have lost its leverage over Williams."
Fulcrum, the most "left" of the CofE evangelical groups have now issued their analysis of the HoB statement.
They are disappointed in the HoB statement and go as far at to suggest that the archbishop of Canterbury "disinvite" more TEC bishops.
If as your analysis suggests, the HoB response was calibrated to appeal to the moderate centre of the communion, it is possible that the Fulcrum statement indicates that the bullseye was missed.
Yes, you are right--but only if the folks at Fulcrum are willing to secede right now, or in the very near future.
Some CoE evangelicals are indeed willing, or at least have made a credible threat in that direction (the Reform faction), but their leadership distanced itself from the threat.
Is a murky threat from Reform sufficient?
I don't know--but I think more is needed. If NT Wright is going to secede, then I will admit to being wrong.
My bet is Duncan, Nigeria, Reform, et al have grossly overplayed their hands, and in the process discredited their cause enough to lose the support of moderate evangelicals who might well be more inclined to let the Windsor process take its course.
To be willing to let the Windsor process take its course is to be willing to follow Williams.
Depends on exactly what what the leverage is being applied to leverage. Fulcrum is suggesting that only some TEC bishops should be invited to Windsor. That doesn't sound like the moderate centre has bought the TEC story. Maybe the seperatist right (if they really are seperatist outside of TEC) and the TEC bishops are BOTH less than believeable viewed from the centre.
I meant ...leverage applied to lever Williams ....
True, the moderate right has not bought TEC's move, and will not rest with things left where TEc wants to leave them.
But that is OK, if Fulcrum folks are willing to stay at the table, and negotiate. In effect, Fulcrum folks would agree for the moment to disagree, and would not leave the table follwing TEC's latest move.
I think TEC's HoB is more moderate, or at least is more capable of freezing maneuvers to develop official SSU blessings and ordaining active gays than the HoD is. The HoD trends ever leftward on these matters.
That would mean TEC's center--the HoD more accurately pointing that out--is considerably to the left of the HoB--IMHO.
the fact is, Fulcrum CAN push the HoB around through Williams. The HoB at GC2006 and recently proves they can be pried away from the HoD. I bet as long as the HoB can still be pushed around and pried loose from the HoD, Fulcrum will stay at the table and work via Williams.
The reason for Fulcrum staying might be, say: perhaps if things deteriorate a tad more for TEC, they will be willing to buy into a restrictive Covenant. The HoB would be willing to manipulate teh HoD into signing on, and TEC's liberalization with regard to gays would go on ice indefiitely.
That outcome, though it woudl be horrible for many in TEC to contemplate--is a real possibility; Fulcrum might well know it.
Post a Comment
<< Home