Kendall, if you consider this statement “very important”, and not just the same old shuck and jive we have seen from ++Williams, there are many of us who would very much appreciate learning just why you consider it “very important”.

With apologies to T. S. Eliot - This is how the Communion ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Very odd that they don’t provide the actual questions, just the answers.  However, this is the bit that most caught my attention:

“As to the overall perspective on the Primates Meeting, I’ve read quite carefully through, I think, all the reports from yesterday’s discussions in the Indaba groups and found some quite mixed messages about the Primates meeting.

In past Lambeth Conferences there has been encouragement for the Primates to do a bit more.  When the Primates do try to do a little bit more it is often not very well received and so we are on a bit of that cycle, I suspect.

The things that need to be balanced, I guess are that Primates are in some sense people well equipped to speak for the wholeness of their particular region or local church at the same time there is a sense that all of our Anglican communities are also synodical bodies in which the senior bishop is not the only voice.  So balancing the Primates and the ACC has always been a bit of a juggling act and I guess it will go on being that.”

I wonder which bishops weren’t very happy with the Primates meetings?  TEC and ACoC perhaps?  What’s odd about the ABC’s comments here, however, is that I’m not aware that the ACC has spoken with a different voice from the Primates—has it?  There seems to be a subtext here about the Primates.

I’m with #1 and (by implication) #2. What’s “very important” here?

In terms of Southern Cone parishes in Canada and others in similar situations, I was struck by the implicit accusation of spiritual flippancy and insincerity in these words:

“I think that for another province to provide that kind of pastoral and, supposedly, canonical oversight for a minority group is, in effect, to say ‘It’s no use negotiating with the local body.  Nothing they come up with is going to be adequate and you can’t trust them, as it were, to safeguard the essence of Christian orthodoxy here.’  ... And I’m simply saying that’s not something any Christian should say lightly of any other.”

Would the good ABC please name a single parish that is in his opinion saying or acting this “lightly” of their local diocesan situation? Having just returned from visiting a friend involved in the situation in New Westminster, I have to say words fail me at this extraordinary assertion.

I outlined in my opening Presidential Address that the Covenant was not meant to be a punitive exclusionary device.  It was meant to say if you want to adopt a more integral and more intensified form of mutual responsibility this is the way to do it.  If that doesn’t happen, well, that’s regrettable.  It doesn’t mean there’s an absolute separation, it means that some levels of relationships won’t be entered into and that can still leave open a great many possibilities for co-operation.

So….nothing really that important about the Covenant, since there won’t be any firm negative consequences for not participating in it. It will have about the same weight as an Anglican Book Club.

I think that for another province to provide that kind of pastoral and, supposedly, canonical oversight for a minority group is, in effect, to say ‘It’s no use negotiating with the local body.  Nothing they come up with is going to be adequate and you can’t trust them, as it were, to safeguard the essence of Christian orthodoxy here.’
I’m not saying that’s stated by everybody involved in interventions but you hear it from time to time and I’ve seen it written and I’ve heard it in correspondence from time to time.  And I’m simply saying that’s not something any Christian should say lightly of any other.

Well, who the hell HAS been saying this lightly? The GS Archbishops are being very serious about the need for this. Wouldn’t it be nice if Rowan took it all a little more seriously too?

the Communion, the Anglican Communion needed to know how deep the commitment was, on people’s part, to staying together.  I think we’ve got a bit of an answer to that.

I guess we didn’t need to know how deep the commitment was to keeping the faith and practice of the church as these guys received it.

I might just add, perhaps, a note here.  One complication in discussing all this is that assumption, readily made, that the blessing of a same sex union and / or the ordination of someone in an active same-sex relationship is simply a matter of human rights.
I’m not saying that is claimed by people within the church but you hear that from time to time.  You hear it in the secular press.

People in the church, namely bishops (you know, the ones with the pointy hats), have been saying exactly that. If Rowan doesn’t know this then he is a first class idiot. If he does know this and chooses to deny it then he is a first class ass.

This is important the same way that finding blood in your stool is important.

I’m not sure what Kendall Harmon found important although I am, of course, very interested in that.  What I found interesting and possibly important is this:

I think the issues about what conditions the church lays down for the blessing of unions has to be shaped by its own thinking, its own praying.

Apparently Holy Scipture, the Word of the Lord, plays no part.

In a time when loving patience and prayerful wisdom seem to be so scarce within the Anglican Communion, I am extremely grateful for God’s appointing men such as Archbishop Rowan Williams to the positions of leadership He has.  What a blessing to have the likes of him at the helm in the midst of the current storm.  If only more of our bishops would pursue the virtuous habitus of prudentia as has +RW, seeking the true power of God by means of the weaknesses that come with the cross. What a blessing.
Jesus, have mercy; Mary, pray.

There is much that is important here cheifly because they are things I don’t think we have heard the ABC say quite so clearly before.
For Rowan Williams, qualifier in chief, this was an amazingly clear, if not definitive, press conference. Some key things:

I think that for another province to provide that kind of pastoral and, supposedly, canonical oversight for a minority group is, in effect, to say ‘It’s no use negotiating with the local body.  Nothing they come up with is going to be adequate and you can’t trust them, as it were, to safeguard the essence of Christian orthodoxy here.’

I’m not saying that’s stated by everybody involved in interventions but you hear it from time to time and I’ve seen it written and I’ve heard it in correspondence from time to time.  And I’m simply saying that’s not something any Christian should say lightly of any other.

This is significant. Not just that he states this but he does not suggest this is a wrong or more importantly ungenerous to even say it at all. Prior to DES I think he would have.

===

I think if the north American churches don’t accept the need for moratoria then, to say the least, we are no further forward.  The idea of a covenant which includes as many of them as possible becomes more fragile and that means as a communion we continue to be in grave peril.

This is significant because RW has clearly stated there will be a Covenant. The onus is to join up. In a sense nobody is in till they sign up and he states a failure to adhere to the moratoria will prevent someone from signing up. The writing is on the wall, RW can count. The covenant will contain language which makes adherence to a traditional stance on marriage needed. It’s interesting that he states the North American Churches and then says “as many as them as possible”. I think he is thinking of churches as literal individual churches and not provinces. He has resigned himself that some will be in and some out.

There other things. His seeing the AC as needing catholic/global ideal to push against the tendencies to get trapped in a local context. Isn’t this a very odd thing to say if TEC had just convinced others of the need for local cultural reading of scripture and ordinations? They didn’t.

More of a church in the sense that that structure, as I again said in the Presidential Address, represents a bit of a challenge to the tendency for local churches to get trapped in their local contexts.  I think that’s a danger.  The catholic ideal, if you like, the global ideal, is one of the ways we push back against those tendencies.

The other surprising thing is RW’s strong defense of the Primates Meeting, especially after DES.

Frankly if I were a revisionist Bishop this press conference would have scared the crap out of me. I do not think it bodes well for KJS and her “Anglican Communion is suffering the birth pangs of something new, which none of us can yet fully appreciate or understand, yet we know that the Spirit continues to work in our midst.”

Why doesn’t it scare them? Because they know they really have no voice in GC any longer. There is no real middle in TEC any longer and SSB’s rites will get official sanction at GC09. It’s over with really.

In the meeting of Primates at Gramado, in Brazil some years ago, the phrase ‘a variety of pastoral response’ was used as an attempt to recognise that there were places where private prayers were said and, although there is a lot of unease about that, there wasn’t quite the same sense of feeling about that as about public liturgies.

But again, ‘pastoral response’ has been interpreted very differently and there are those in the USA who would say ‘Pastoral Response, well, it’s a blessing’ and I’m not very happy about that.

This too is significant. It’s clear that pastoral care should be “private” in RW’s mind. Advertisements and postings in newspapers is not private. Neither are public announcements. So this stuff like what Bruno and Chane are pulling won’t cut it. Again I have never heard anything from RW like this.

I am unimpressed.  It’s simply more of the same,  No, it’s simply time to move on with GAFCON.  I am no longer interested in trying to tease some meaning and backbone out of the ABC’s words which, as he constantly remindes us, he has no power to enforce anyway.

I agree with so many here.  ++Williams is too intelligent not to get it.  He has decided to reframe the crisis in a way that it is a problem but not one of essentials.  The fact that 25% of the Primates did not come because of a lack of trust and his failure to lead seems to escape him.

Frankly, this is his last ditched effort to keep as much of the Communion together as possible…and certainly go forward with those who he agrees with theologically.

Sadly, he is arrogant nearly as arrogant as the USA and TEC for he is willing to make a unilateral decision and right off a majority of the AC.

If it is a bluff (and I do not think it is), he has made a major strategic mistake.

Those like the ACI who were hoping were banking on Canterbury’s leadership must be disappointed.

Chris Hathaway,
I fell out of my chair! You are so right. Thank you for your refreshingly honest and insightful analysis. Well done! Hope everybody reads it.

Br. Michael,
Where’s your sense of sport? Teasing meaning and backbone out of the ABC’s words is becoming an international pastime. (Like cricket for the really smart and educated.)

Re: #9 and the issue of the phrase a “variety of pastoral response”:

Last year following the TEC HoB meeting in New Orleans, we elves did quite a bit of research on tracing the origin and use of that language.  See our 11 page thoroughly documented essay here:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/6797

Here’s an excerpt:

So, what were the Primates actually affirming in May 2003, and is the TEC HoB’s adoption of this phrase consistent with the original usage or intent? It appears that this is a key question. Let’s trace the history of this language and the intent behind the original language, first looking at the actual use of this phrase in New Orleans.

1. TEC HoB Usage of the Phrase “Breadth of ... response” in New Orleans

On Sept. 24, in the midst of the TEC HoB meeting, TitusOne Nine published the proposed draft of the TEC response to the primates. That draft response included this section:

  5. Because we are a liturgical church our actions concerning blessings are expressed in public liturgies. No rite of blessing for persons living in same sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. We wish to make it clear that the House of Bishops has not voted to authorize such liturgies. Even in the absence of such public rites, we acknowledge that the blessing of same sex unions, no matter how public or private, is unacceptable to some of our brothers and sisters in our own House, in our church, and in the Communion. The issue remains perplexing for us as we seek to balance these concerns about rites of blessing and the pressing pastoral need that confronts us. We wish to offer respect for these differing viewpoints.

  We are grateful that the Primates have articulated their support for meeting the individual pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons. In 2003 they wrote “there is a duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all Christians to respond with love and understanding to homosexual persons.” The Primates have written that there must be a breadth of private and pastoral responses to individual situations. It is the case that for many decades, the Episcopal Church has explored the most faithful ways of ministering to and with gay and lesbian people who are part of our common life. We acknowledge that in some of our dioceses this includes the blessing of same sex unions.

Note how here the proposed text explicitly acknowledges the public blessings of same-sex unions occurring in various dioceses and tries to claim that such blessings fall under the “breadth of ... pastoral responses” envisioned by the Primates. The TEC bishops suggest and appear to want to believe that the only matter of concern to the Primates was the official authorization of liturgical rites for same-sex blessings at a national level, in spite of the fact that the Dar es Salaam Communiqué explicitly stated the Primates’ concern about TEC’s “pastoral provision” in various dioceses.

In the final statement from New Orleans, that section re: Same-sex blessings was modified to read as follows:

  Blessing of Same-Sex Unions

  We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty “to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.” They further stated, “...It is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.”

Again, the TEC bishops are trying to claim that the Primates’ 2003 statement would encompass and allow the current practice of public same sex blessings occurring in many TEC dioceses.

As noted, the language in question goes back to the May 2003 Primates’ Communiqué following the Primates meeting in Gramado, Brazil. Let’s look at that more closely…

2. The May 2003 Primates Communiqué
You can read the entire communiqué here, here’s the key section:

Human Sexuality
We take seriously the duty laid upon us by the Lambeth Conference 1998 to monitor ongoing discussion of this matter and encourage continued study and reflection in the context of common prayer and worship. We are grateful to the Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, for taking forward our discussion on matters of sexuality by introducing the booklet “True Union in the Body?”, which fruitfully illuminated our study. We are also grateful to Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold for drawing our attention to the Report of the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) on this issue. We commend the study of both documents.
The question of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions is still a cause of potentially divisive controversy. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.

This is distinct from the duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all Christians to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations. As recognised in the booklet “True Union”, it is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.

[...]

Why bother to cite this context at such length? It’s because it seems quite significant to this writer that the TEC House of Bishops reached back to a statement from May 2003, prior to the full-blown crisis, to try to find something that would justify their actions and their continued intransigence in allowing local option of same-sex blessings in many dioceses. They ignored the precise language of the Windsor Report, and the Dromantine Communiqué, and the Dar es Salaam Communiqué, all of which were clear and exact in calling for a moratorium on same-sex blessings. Dar es Salaam even explicitly noted the Primates’ concern over the incoherence of TEC’s position and allowance of local option, demanding an “unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses.”
But the statements and requests of the past 4 years all made subsequent to TEC’s actions in August 2003 were ignored by TEC bishops who instead latched their hopes on one vague line of the May 2003 Primates Communiqué, a statement which it can be argued does not even closely do justice to the document “True Union in the Body” from which it is supposedly derived. [It is important to note that nowhere in the May 2003 Primates Communiqué is there an actual direct quotation from True Union. A detailed text search of True Union returns 0 matches for the word “breadth,” for instance.]

—elfgirl

Since many may not have the time to read or re-read our 11 page essay on the history of the use of the “variety of pastoral responses” language in relation to SSBs, here is one more important excerpt from the 2003 booklet True Union in the Body, from which the Primates in May 2003 ostensibly based their Gramado Primates Communique on this subject:

3. True Union in the Body? (available online here)
In May 2003, the Primates claimed that their support for the statement about a “breadth of private response” comes from True Union in the Body, a booklet commissioned by Primate Drexel Gomez to address the growing tensions over this issues of homosexuality in the Anglican Communion occasioned by the rejection of Lambeth 1.10 by a significant portion of the TEC Bishops.

True Union is a 60+ page document which makes a very careful, logical and nuanced study of the issues surrounding the blessing of same-sex unions, the theological issues and the choices ahead for the Anglican Communion. It is a powerful and important document and it is quite remarkable to re-read now, nearly 5 years later and see what foresight the authors had regarding the potential for crisis in the Communion if restraint was not exercised.

As best as I can determine after a careful text search, the Primates statement from May 2003 about “breadth of response” is likely based on section 6:18 of True Union:

A moratorium?
6.18 In these circumstances, given both the lack of agreed procedures at the Communion level and the need for a period of stability under a new Archbishop of Canterbury, it would be preferable if within the Communion as a whole a moratorium could be placed on actions in this area which seek to alter the traditional public teaching and practice of the Christian Church. That traditional teaching must be upheld, even if at the same time some room is allowed for the protection of private conscience and the use of pastoral discretion which does not create public scandal.

It is clear merely from looking at the context of the sentence on “pastoral discretion” above that this statement was not intended to provide cover for the type of local option currently practiced in Episcopal dioceses where public same-sex blessings are performed in TEC parishes, by TEC clergy and with the clear permission of the diocesan bishop. Such blessings have, in fact, created the public scandal explicitly cited as a concern by True Union’s authors.

It is essential to note as well footnote 3 of True Union, as it is the only other place the phrase “pastoral discretion” appears:

Although different theological accounts may be given of ‘blessing’ the fundamental objection raised here is to the formal authorization and public commendation of same-sex unions by the Church that is represented by revisionist proposals. As noted later (e.g. 6.18) this is different from pragmatic pastoral discretion in private and informal prayer as Christians minister to people and move them by God’s grace towards a form of life and witness in conformity with the Church’s public teaching.

By “pastoral discretion,” True Union’s authors envisioned “private and informal prayer” carried out “in conformity with the Church’s public teaching,” i.e., the context of what the Church has traditionally taught re: marriage and sexuality.

In a brief entry posted at TitusOneNine, Michael Watson makes an even more startling observation about True Union, and why it cannot be used to mean what the TEC Bishops are trying to claim it (and the Primates’ 2003 statement) meant:

Louie Crew cites the reference in paragraph 143 of the Windsor Report to a “breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.” But the cited language in the Windsor Report is a quote from the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003. The Primates’ letter in turn cites as its source on the individual pastoral care issue True Union in the Body. What does True Union in the Body say about the subject? In Section 5, “Embodying True Grace: The Pastoral Response of the Church,” we find this:

“Pastoral care that is shaped by this costly grace will resist actions to legitimate same-sex unions and seek to show that, because they are in theological error, such actions by the Church do not contain within them the promised seed of freedom.” (paragraph 5.15)

“Thus the decision to bless same-sex unions, rather than assisting a life of faithful witness and being good pastoral practice, sends out contradictory messages concerning the Christian life. It undermines faithful witness by leading Christian believers into areas of real temptation and indeed sin.”
(paragraph 5.16)

We are asked to believe that blessings of same sex unions are within the range of private pastoral responses envisioned by the Primates (and in the Windsor Report), but in fact the Primates’ (and the Windsor Report’s) cited source on the subject directly negates the view that unofficial blessings are to be embraced as a permissible pastoral response.

Read that again. The SOURCE for the Primates’ statement on “breadth of response” directly negates the view that unofficial blessings are to be embraced as a permissible pastoral response.

Elves, thanks for the work and all the background.
As you show anyone would have a hard time maintaining the line TEC does. The significance with RW for me is that he speaks of “I’m not happy about it”, public blessings. While I think he has always publicly supported the communiques and such ,as ABC, I think this is the first time he has stated HIS position on it.

I think the last two paragraphs are pretty important for those who support blessings to hear.  Blessings are not “rights” nor is ordination a matter of justice.  Blessings are, however, freely given. 

Personally, if giving up blessings meant that reasserters would support civil unions and the protection of gay people world-wide in the political sphere, it would be a fair trade. 

Gay Christians can bless whoever they want in the name of Christ, anyway.  And what does it mean if someone says they are blessing, not as a priest, but as a fellow Christian?  How is such enforceable?  Do we take the Christian ID card away?  And I will admit, I’ve blessed animals and cars before, without getting any approval from the bishop. 

And I know that my cat used to sin frequently, without remorse.

John Wilkins [#16] writes: “And I know that my cat used to sin frequently, without remorse.”

Used to?