The Archbishop of Canterbury's latest
letter is at his website. You may read it in its entirety there. I excerpted parts of the letter. The archbishop's words are in italics.
As the proposals for an Anglican Covenant now go forward, it is still possible that some will not be able to agree; there was a clear sense that some sort of covenant will help our identity and cohesion, although the bishops wish to avoid a legalistic or juridical tone.I don't, because I'm concerned that the Covenant
will be used for the purpose of exclusion.
A strong majority of bishops present agreed that moratoria on same-sex blessings and on cross-provincial interventions were necessary, but they were aware of the conscientious difficulties this posed for some, and there needs to be a greater clarity about the exact expectations and what can be realistically implemented. How far the intensified sense of belonging together will help mutual restraint in such matters remains to be seen. I do not agree. The moratoria have been followed quite long enough.
Many participants believed that the indaba method, while not designed to achieve final decisions, was such a necessary aspect of understanding what the questions might be that they expressed the desire to see the method used more widely – and to continue among themselves the conversations begun in Canterbury.I agree.
First, there was an overwhelming unity around the need for the Church to play its full part in the worldwide struggle against poverty ignorance and disease. The Millennium Development Goals were repeatedly stressed, and there was universal agreement that both governmental and non-governmental development agencies needed to create more effective partnerships with the churches and to help the churches increase and improve their own capacity to deliver change for the sake of justice.I agree that the Anglican Communion should, but there's the label of church again. There is no such entity as the world-wide Anglican Church. I believe that he chooses the label "church" quite deliberately, because he says it over and over.
...on the controversial issue of the day regarding human sexuality, there was a very widely-held conviction that premature or unilateral local change was risky and divisive, in spite of the diversity of opinion expressed on specific questions.Whether the conviction is widely-held or not, I can't say. I suppose it depends on who is counted in. The Episcopal Church must do what it must do. If others consider what we do "risky and divisive", then so be it.
There remains the scandal that a duly elected and consecrated bishop of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, was barred from attendance at Lambeth. His voice was not heard.
I had thought that the Archbishop of Canterbury's main concern (and his continued bashing of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada) had to do with his desire to hold together the Anglican Communion and not have it split on his watch. I think that, indeed, he does not want that to happen, although it seems to me that it has already happened. But I wonder if his primary concern may be for his own Church of England. Folks on both sides of the issue of human sexuality within the Church of England are getting restive. He's trying to straddle that divide, and the actions of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada may be seen by him as encouraging those within his own church to move forward with similar actions. He must also be aware that incursions by foreign bishops into his own territory, similar to those that TEC and ACofC have experienced, may be undertaken. Of course, I'm not inside the archbishop's head, but it seems possible to me that his concern for division within his own church may motivate a good many of his words.
Just my two cents.
UPDATE: From the comments:
Blogger John Bassett said...
We are best bound together by the fewest and loosest ties. If Rowan could understand that, he would preserve the Church more effectively.To which I answer a great and loud "Amen!"
UPDATE 2: Please read Mark Harris' reflection on the letter at
Preludium AND Adrian Worsfold at
Pluralist Speaks.