02 July 2008

a question of integrity

A further reflection:

Dr. Williams continues to claim there should be a covenant based on the Windsor travesty. He claims he invited to Lambeth those who should be supportive of or compliant with the Windsor travesty.

The Gaffe produced a statement that utterly repudiates Windsor. In place of the "instruments of unity" the Gaffe leaders offer themselves. They not the ABC, are the focus of unity, they not ACC are the working organization, their new and very exclusive 'primates council' is on offer instead of the existing primates' meeting and Lambeth councils.

Dr. Williams ignores all of this in his statement. His own comments that those invited to Lambeth should be willing to accept and work on the idea of a covenant, and function within what he thinks of as a Windsor framework, suggest he should be withdrawing invitations. How does he accept attendance from PB Venables while that worthy proclaims he will continue to poach diocese (even if litigation stops some of the theft) in the US and Canada? How does he continue to act as though the other 5 primates who are now in the "primates' council" belong at Lambeth? A question of integrity -- how does he continue these people in key roles in the communion?

An equally valid question is how these 6 and their bishops can appear at Lambeth in the face of their repudiation of the archbishop and his intent for the gathering? I suppose that I am not a good one to ask this as I have never associated integrity with them. But, can the rest of the bishops at Lambeth actually accept these men as leaders of this communion while they are repudiating Lambeth itself? Does that make any sense?

I am not suggesting that they should be somehow excommunicated. But this gathering by Dr. Williams' own hand is supposed to consist of those he thinks of as Windsor compliant and supportive of the covenant.

Equally, given his status as a properly elected bishop who has never refused to consider an eventual covenant, it is fair to ask what integrity can be found in continuing to exclude Gene Robinson?

I suppose we can observe the archbishop is between a hammer and an anvil, but that happens to a lot of people. The question is how they handle it. A question of integrity.

3 comments:

Phil Snider said...

I think you might be a little harsh on the ABC. He really is caught between a rock and a hard place and he's trying to be as conciliatory as possible. I take your point that GAFCON is against the spirit of Windsor (surely not a travesty, though! At least, when you look at the alternatives). Windsor clearly admonishes the very same policies which are being employed by significant members of GAFCON. If it was schismatic to ordain priests in 2004, it is just as schismatic to continue to do so in 2008 as well as to receive whole parishes and diocese under one's oversight. The question remains who and what caused the schism, but the reality of the schism is palpable. Yet, that doesn't make it right.

I don't know what to expect out of Lambeth or out of the inevitable aftermath. It will, I think, be messy.

Peace,
Phil

JimB said...

Phil,

As to 'travesty.' Any resemblance between the first section of the Windsor report and what actually happened is an accident and the authors either knew or should have known that. We agree, I hope, no one does good theology by doing bad history. The last section, the Appendices includes an incredibly bad draft covenant that led to the rarest of moments, ABp Akinola and PB Griswald agreed it was DoA.

I did not mean to associate the word "travesty" with Dr. Williams. He was stuck with the Windsor Report -- at best a blunt instrument. Sort of like trying to do brain surgery with a table knife. I do think staying with the fiction that it represents a way forward is a blunder.

There is a reason why so many cultures have the legend of the kid who finally confronts the bully. In almost all of those stories, the bully is defeated. Somehow, I guess, Wales does not incorperate that image or else Dr. Williams does not get it.

In a recent book, Dr. Williams waxes verbal on what he sees as the British talent for comprimise. He is simply wrong. Americans compromise: we call it the Congress. Canadians compromise: you call it Parliament. What the British do is temporize, they paper over the conflicts until they hope, the sides forget why they disagree or die off. That approach simply wont work here.

FWIW
jimB

Phil Snider said...

"In a recent book, Dr. Williams waxes verbal on what he sees as the British talent for comprimise. He is simply wrong. Americans compromise: we call it the Congress. Canadians compromise: you call it Parliament. What the British do is temporize, they paper over the conflicts until they hope, the sides forget why they disagree or die off."

Ah, but Jim, you haven't seen a Royal Commission work in Canada before have you? We can temporize with the best. In fact, if a politician has a really difficult issue, he establishes a Royal Commission. That way, if things work out, he'll be out of office before the report comes out and, God willing, his successor can ignore it with impunity.

I'm not sure that the ABC is doing this, mind you. I just can't see how he can reconcile either side. As for bullies, I grant some of the African primates can be bullies. But, then, both TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada is more than a little passive aggressive. Which is worse to deal with, I wonder?

What I'm saying is neither side is entirely in the right here, so steering a middle course really is an excercise in getting run over in both directions. I hope the ABC has his mirrors on his crash helmit shined up. It is going to be a bumpy ride in Lambeth this month.

Peace,
Phil

St Laika's

Click to view my Personality Profile page