I feel like I am endlessly trying to understand the Anglican Communion and failing. You see, I imagined that Primates meetings were a bit like 'Chapter meetings' whereby the clergy and lay ministers in an area meet together and the prime focus seems to be sharing stories and supporting each other. Sometimes we organise things, but that is pretty much it. That is not to say it is of no worth - I think it is tremendously worthwhile.
I am beginning to think that Primate's meetings are different to this, especially since I have been trying to understand why some of the Primates are refusing to attend the meeting in Dublin. They say it is because the decisions of the previous meetings have not been actioned:
Unless and until there is unequivocal commitment to honour the agreed basis of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and implement the decisions of previous Primates’ Meetings (2005, 2007, 2009) expressed in the respective Communiqués, especially that of Dar es Salem 2007, it will only lead to further erosion of the credibility of the Primates’ Meeting and accentuate our failure to honour the work already done by them.
I must say Dar es Salem 2007 makes depressing reading, it fells like all the woes are due to The Episcopal Church (TEC) and even incursions from other Anglican Churches into America are downplayed because they were serving a pastoral need that was caused by the bad behaviour of TEC.
Another thing I am confused about - we are synodically governed in the Church of England, having three houses that vote - laity, clergy and bishops. Now Lambeth 1.10, which rejects homosexual practice, was created under very dubious circumstances by a group of Bishops without any input from clergy and laity. So I don't understand what authority it has. If we are a grassroots church then I don't see why we don't just ignore it. By all means discuss homosexuality in the synods and come to a view, but surely Lambeth 1.10, at best, only tells us what the mind of a group of international Bishops is. It can't tell us what the 'Anglican view of Homosexuality' is - can it? Moreover it surely can't be wielded against TEC can it?
Genuine questions.. I would love someone to explain it to me.
9 comments:
As Spiderman would say, "With great power comes great responsibility" :-)
Lambeth and the Windsow report never did have any legal authority.
But the mistake liberals made was to leave it there and just keep proclaiming that it didn't have any authority.
In practice, we see that it acquired a huge authority simply because those who wanted it to insisted and insisted and insisted - and the Covenant proposal is a direct result.
The same is true for the Primate Meeting.
Actual authority is what is won through the political process, not just what the rules say..
Lesley - I don't understand the Anglican communion either. Does anybody?
Erika - The Windsor Report may not have legal authority but it has significant implications for those offering for or already in ordained ministry in the Church of England.
Nancy
the Windsor Report has precisely that authority individuals wish to grant it. Some focus on what it says about the so called mind of the Communion on same sex sexuality, others focus on what it says about the listening process. If you look at the actual effect it's had, the marginalisation in the church of lgbt people has increased since it was written and there has been precious little genuine listening.
All those documents, processes, meetings, instruments etc. have always been successful and "authoritative" when they were used to tighten restrictions for lgbt people and they have all not had a shred of authority when they were used in an attempt to maintain a respectful dialogue.
It has always been hopelessly naive to judge the Windsor Report by what it actually says and the legal power it supposedly hasn't. In reality, like the Primates' meeting it has become what politics made it.
I was wondering if the dominance of male bishops might have something to do with those decisions made, which those who oppose true equality, such as the Bishops from the Southern Cone (Whatever that is?) can use to beat the rest of the communion up with.
It might have been better if the ABC had boycotted the meeting in protest at their presence.
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church seems to be the common denominator in this, perhaps because she is both female and has permitted some freedom of thought and choice within the TEC.
Sadly it just shows how split the communion is - but ABC keeps trying to sound positive about it all - I think we would be better getting on with resolving our domestic issue before trying to put the rest of the world to rights.
Many Anglican provinces have a very different culture than Canada, UK, and USA, South Africa - their view of bishop is the model of "prince" bishop - or hierarch. The primate (sometimes with other bishops) appoints new bishops and decides who becomes a priest - so the system is self perpetuating. No one dares oppose them - a strong man is admired - one who has lots of wealth - it is as tho people identify with the bishop even tho their circumstances are very different. Sort of like identifying with movie stars during an economic depression.
These primates think only they should have the power to say what we believe and do.
The lines of difference are almost all parallel to who were the missionaries from England - 2 very different groups.
The whole matter of how authority is exercised in the Communion has been overturned by a blatantly dishonest "facts on the ground" campaign by the Anglican far right. By simply repeating over and over and over again, ad nauseum, that Lambeth 1998 1.10 (or at least the clauses they like)is a standard to which all must adhere, that the statements of Dromantine and Dar were directives which all were obliged to obey, that Windsor was a matter of settled agreement which could not be questioned, they hoped to make it so.
At the risk of going "Godwin," it is the same strategy as a certain mid-20th century German propagandist. It is the Big Lie. Make your lie so big and repeat it so often, it will eventually be believed.
Like yesterday's Sugden slander about the puir wee Anglicans who've been "driven" from their homes and churches, it is nowt but a tissue of lies told by a gang of liars.
Malcolm
sometimes Godwin isn't Godwin.
It does need to be said.
Ok, thanks for all those helpful comments - they've enabled me to see thinks much more clearly...
Post a Comment