More Contrarianism

This time from the right:

I find myself questioning those on this thread who see this letter as a sign of weak and irresolute leadership by the Archbishop of Canterbury or as some new resolution on his part. It strikes me that in its own way it is quite clever and strong.

1. It asserts the primacy of the ABC over the Primates. RW sets himself as the arbiter of the response to the DES Communique. He will consult, but he alone will make the final determination of who is Windsor-compliant and who will get invitations to Lambeth. And after Lambeth, the pressure will be off.

2. He makes it clear that being Anglican in the fullest sense means being in communion with Canterbury, which is no doubt what he considers an essential of “Catholic” ecclesiology (cf. the recent comments by Roger Beckwith and Alister McGrath).

3. It asserts that the basis of his determination will be process over substance. He makes no mention of Lambeth 1.10, which is relevant only as part of the larger “Windsor” process. E.g, are dioceses that openly ordain practicing homosexuals as priests to be declared “Windsor-compliant”? Are bishops who openly declare homosexual activity to be godly and consistent with Scripture to be invited to Lambeth? I have no reason to think that they will not be.

4. It gives moral and legal support to bishops like John Howe who are facing revolts from their own clergy and congregations.

5. It widens the split between the “Fed-Cons” and “Com-Cons,” both within North America and the Global South (see immediate response by ACI).

6. It warns the Common Cause dioceses of TEC that they may be acting precipitously if they take the first steps toward separation since the ABC may be ready to do something on their behalf. Having already whittled the number of genuine Network dioceses to 3 or 4, he will try to detach a few more like Quincy. Finally, it writes off all those non-TEC bodies that have protested the drift of TEC over many years.

7. It warns the most radical revisionists not to cross a line by being too overt in snubbing the wider Communion and endangering Lambeth by inflammatory acts, such as the election of a lesbian bishop or authorization of official SSB rites. In other words, the Bishops of California and Canada will be wise to delay implementing the recent Resolutions of their conventions.

8. By citing a “Catholic” ecclesiology while ignoring the actual culture and polity of The Episcopal Church, it offers no real hope for the future for conservative parishes and clergy.

9. It isolates those Global South Primates who have taken on congregations in all but the hypothetically non-compliant dioceses, and even in those cases, he may be suggesting that some hypothetical Visitor scheme is the appropriate instrument for alternative oversight.

I suppose the most positive reading of this letter is that Rowan Williams sees, with regret, that the mainstream leadership of The Episcopal Church is prepared to separate itself from the wider Anglican Communion at some time in the future, but he wants to make sure that that decision is deliberate and unequivocal. However, given his own agreement with the gay-rights agenda, it seems more likely that he wants to buy time for the Communion to change over to his views of The Anglican Way.
Posted by Stephen Noll on 10-21-2007 at 09:48 PM