Sigh.

It’s not about sexual orientation. It’s about being in a sexual relationship outside of Holy Matrimony. That’s a Big Deal.

So far, the checks and balances have failed.
1. Local diocese. She should not be allowed to be in active Holy Orders.
2. Nomination process. She should not have been seriously considered. She certainly should not have been nominated.
3. Election. She should not have received any significant number of votes.

Next, we have:
4. Consent. The Bishops and Standing Committees should take no action.
5. Consecration. The PB, and other bishops, should not take part in a consecration ceremony.

Even though the ABp of C has spoken, I doubt that he has the courage to intervene, even though he does have the authority and power to do so. We shall see.

I personally believe that he should make it crystal-clear that any BIshop consenting or participating in the consecration should be banned from Lambeth, and any other Anglican Communion event. Again, this is a Big Deal. It isn’t a second-order issue.

Does anyone know when this will be put before Bishops for a vote?

Right, Ralph (#1).  Only I’d put it even more strongly.  Being banned from Lambeth is a mere slap on the wrist; it really means nothing.  What is needed is formal condemnation of the pro-gay gospel and the moral relativism that underlies it, and along with that stern declarations of broken communion, just as many Global South leaders have courageously done, at great cost financially.

Like Kendall, I think that +Buno the Brute and his ilk in the HoB have seriously underestimated the severity of the problem they’ve created.  Like drunk drivers, intoxicated with the euphoria of success in seeing a lesbain elected, they are driving TEC in a reckless fashion, heedless of the danger to which they are oblivious.  They insist on full provincial autonomy, without any real accountablility or limits.  The infamous “train wreck in slow motion” (that’s been obviously looming for so long) just sped up.

And in such a volatile situation, the idea of relying on something as weak as the proposed Covenant is sheer folly.  It can’t save the AC from disintegration.  Real theological unity is what counts, not some superficial, artificial unity that’s merely institutional and glosses over irreconciliable differences over core doctrines and essential practices of the Christian faith (in any biblical form).

David Handy+

David+,

I presume you mean by “proposed Covenant,” one lacking Section Four. If that is put back in play - and we don’t yet know for certain what will emerge, even if we have our suspicions - then it does present a possible way forward.

It is still the case that GAFCON and “the Global South” are not coterminous and that is a problem. Whether Canon Glasspool’s election will push some wavering provinces into closer alignment with GAFCON we have yet to see.   

Catholic and Reformed

Nice try, Jeremy (#4), but no.  I meant the whole idea of a Covenant is a lame one that is completely inadequate to deal with the severity of the problem we face in the AC, even with a STRENGTHENED Section 4.  What is needed is nothing less than a new creed that formally rules out theological and moral relativism, and some kind of central authority structures (legislative, executive, and especially judicial) with binding, trans-provincial powers.

Totally inconceivable, you say??  Politically impossible in today’s AC??  Well, you might be right.  I’m not saying that it’s likely to happen.  Only that it desperately needs to happen.

David Handy+

#2
I believe they have 120 days from the election to cast their votes.

It seems to me that Williams has “talked tough” before, but when the time for action he has sabotaged it.

Williams—“full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Fair enough David+ (#5),

Some of those involved think the structures you describe are implicit in Clause Four (otherwise why all the excitement over its withdrawal). I agree that they are now inevitable; it’s more a matter of how we get to them.

And again, it might be different if GAFCON/FCA was able to present itself as a body representing every Global South province as well as substantial minorities of most Global North provinces. To date, they haven’t managed it, which, since there’s no serious divergence on the presenting issue, indicates that something else is in play.

To repeat myself: Kendall shouldn’t be much impressed with RW’s words, which are as numerous and fleeting as snowflakes. They’re not really sound and fury signifying nothing, they are mere squeeks in a dark and empty room.

Re #9, I beg to differ. I won’t put words in Dr Harmon’s mouth, but my take is that when Dr Williams says a moratorium is “necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold,” he is not making a threat. For it is not as though the ABC has suddenly become willing to act against TEC. The necessity he speaks of does not originate in his will but in the communion at large. What is remarkable is that Dr Williams is now acknowledging, in surprisingly clear terms, that the Americans are putting the communion in real peril. He sees that if the ordination goes forward, something is bound to happen, something he will not necessarily be able to control. He accordingly is begging that it not go forward, that there be a step back from the brink.

I think its the ABC that has consistently overestimated TEC commitment to the Communion.  They don’t care about the Communion or the state of ecumenical relations with the RCC or the OC.  Truth be told they don’t care about the state of TEC itself as it crumbles about them.  The only thing they do care about is the figleaf of legitimacy their current hold over the apparatus and finances of TEC and the direct relationship of TEC as a constituent province to Canterbury.  Threatening that legitimacy is about the only leverage he has at the moment.  How long can the ABC continue to suffer the antics of TEC at the risk of not only the Communion but its place a recognized Christian denomination.

well said palagious.

Is it possible that the ABC ala Rip Van Winkle just woke up?

Well, #3 (NRA), I also think it should be put more strongly, However, the ABp of C doesn’t have the authority to fly over to the USA and depose the Bp of LA, the PB, and the other lying “worthless shepherds” of TEC. After all, the Anglican Communion is not hierarchical.

I think we’ll have to continue to rely on the faithful bishops of the church to condemn teachings that in any way promote or tolerate any kind of sexual relationships outside of Holy Matrimony, including homosexual practice. Despite the message from RW, I don’t believe he has the fortitude to do anything unless he is under relentless pressure from (and has the strong support of) the conservative majority in the Anglican Communion. Those who advocate homosexual practice can act in very, very nasty ways when backed into a corner.

We should pray for his mental health over the next few months.

And also his spiritual health.