I find this article and comment very good.  this time Peter Ould gets it!  (I get confused by having two “Oulds” writing commentary!)

The article emphasizes how stern and focused is the Archbishop’s reflection.  It simply has to be understood with an understanding of English nuance and understatement.  Where we all go from here is unknown, however there appears to have been a gauntlet thrown down and we must wonder what Mrs. Schori will do. 

Those advocates of the new agenda are in no doubt about what the Archbishop has said - they are madder than hornets.  I took a detour to “Thinking Anglicans.”  They are from an entirely different world view, not just people who favor the primacy of autonomy.  I believe that the Archbishop is appealing to a Christian view that directly challenges this world view.  It is my hope that we, from our side of things, can take a truly Christian world view and not simply try to take another world view and appropriate it as Christians.  Could this not be the core of so much of the polarization?  It is so easy to fall into the trap of falling into a pattern of baptizing one’s world view rather than seeking an authentically Christian (and Biblical) view.

Hats off to Peter, Ruth, the Archbishop and those from the other side - they get it.
Ian+

I am coming around to a more positive view of this reflection.  Next year at this time it will be interesting to see what has actually happened.  Even a clear if unofficial recognition of ++Duncan and ACNA as a provisional province would be, by Anglican standards, a bold step.

I was initially enthusiastic yesterday and said much of the same things as Peter Ould said.  Rowan’s words are quite strong and appreciated.

But over the course of the day yesterday, as I tried to think what these words might actually mean in terms of helping lead to any concrete action, I grew increasingly pessimistic, especially as I realized ++Rowan had already written such a similar reflection 3 years ago following GC06.

So, I ended up being quite a lot closer in my attitude and overall reaction to David Ould, Peter’s twin…

Perhaps they’re both right about different things.

Random thoughts on the Canterbury response:
1. He obviously feels very strongly both ways; i.e., “Tastes Great - Less Filling.”

2. I am reminded of the old expression “he ain’t gonna do squat.”

3. If Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Rowan is still figuring out what strings to put on the fiddle before he can begin to play.

I appreciate Peter Ould’s thoughtful reflection.  Everyone seems quick to react—same old, same old.  But I was actually surprised by the clarity of the Archbishop’s statement.

I agree with this assessment.  I think that in addition to nuance and British understatement also needs to be added the notion that +++ABC is a Chritian leader and not just a political leader - a point that I believe is lost upon most of TEC’s leadership.  I think +++ABC’s personal views and political views are more to the left than what he wrote as the leader of a “Church”.  He has laid out his views as the “first among equals” and as leader of the COE.  It is now imcumbent upon traditionalists/orthodox/moderates within the communion to come together within the framework he laid out to answer the questions +++ABC put forth.  The GS and its western allies need to come up with a game plan that can achieve their goals of maintaining a relatively Orthodox Anglican Communion - it appears as if +++ABC is willing to let them be the core of the communion- the hard core revisionists are likely to find themselves on the outside looking in - time to reach out one more time for the olive branch.

Oh he says plenty but there is no outright plan to deal with anything. The whole two track theory is such utter farce as to be laughable. Any Christian with even the most basic desire for sound ecclesiology is not going to want to sit on either ‘track’ they will want a new church! How can you really say ‘trads on one track, libs on the other. One is more authentic than the other but both are equal and valued and part of our witness’??

In his desire for unity Rowan has abandoned desire for truth. This is the enshrining of pluralism and that is a grave tragedy. Ultimately you cannot hold contradictry beliefs in tension for very long before credibility goes. A church needs a recognised set of beliefs to preach…what we have here is fudge that is descending into farce.

And what of WO- will this create more tracks? Pro gay & pro WO, anti gay & anti WO, pro WO but anti-gay, anti WO but pro-gay…oh it is just getting silly!!! This is anarchy. Set a course and lead us Archbishop. It is A and B not both

I am mostly in agreement with Karen in #3.  Rowan Williams talks a good game, but he always falls short on action.  I’d be happy to eat my words, but I’m not sanguine about the prospects.

I guess I’m of the same opinion as many others here: This is pretty stern stuff, coming from ++Rowan, at least up until the “two styles of being Anglican” part.  And there are actually a few totally off-the-wall bombshells in here, and that gives me an interest in hope coming out of this.  For example:

16. ... Lay presidency at the Holy Communion is one well-known instance. Another is the regular admission of the unbaptised to Holy Communion as a matter of public policy….

17. Clearly there are significant arguments to be had about such matters on the shared and agreed basis of Scripture, Tradition and reason. But it should be clear that an acceptance of these sorts of innovation in sacramental practice would represent a manifest change in both the teaching and the discipline of the Anglican tradition, such that it would be a fair question as to whether the new practice was in any way continuous with the old. Hence the question of ‘recognisability’ once again arises.

I was *not* expecting anything like that coming down the pike.

As a final analysis, I still think it’s a ghastly mistake, even for a highly educated and erudite man, one who is writing a reflection on a subject wherein lies much detail and nuance, to write so verbosely.  (Physician, heal thyself )  In doing so, one thing at which he succeeds is giving those who would oppose his statement more than ample ammunition to use against him!

Clemmitt

I, too, am mostly in agreement with Peter’s analysis of Rowan’s statement.  As frustrating as this all has been for the orthodox Anglican Christian in North America, perhaps this reflection maps forward, in some way, what will unfold. 

The “two track” solution is really problematic - but is it so different from what’s happening now anyway?  Maybe RW is being “descriptive” as much as anything.  And, if his reflection is an accurate barometer of what is coming down the pike, ACNA may well receive a nod of acceptance from CoE Synod in February next year - TEC will have surely shown its colors more clearly even by then (see Susan Russell’s confident comments that DioLA will test the “moratorium” that doesn’t really exist anyway later this year in an episcopal election).  GAFCON will continue to attract more acceptance, and Orombi, Akrofi, Akinola, et. al. (and their successors) will simply outlast the dying form of Anglicanism in the West.  ACNA, if it keeps its focus, will grow and become a more vital expression of Anglicanism in North America even as TEC membership declines and coffers diminish.

The two tracks will quickly become one - if the ABoC can hold it together that long.

Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. David’s Anglican (ACNA)
Durant, Iowa

I also agree with Peter’s analysis, but, while the Archbishop’s reflections are helpful to “see” the situation aright, his only action step, i.e., the Covenant, is years in the future and very unlikely actually to do what he hopes it will.  The Covenant has been highjacked by the American controlled Primate’s Joint Standing Committee.  It seems clear, given the energy and willingness on the part of TEC and its supporters on the JSC to be seen as manipulating the process at the recent ACC meeting, that they take part #4 of the Covenant very seriously and will use all their power to attempt to change (weaken) it to enable TEC to sign onto the Covenant as a full member of the “full communion” track.  If they suceed, as I believe they will, after the Covenant process is completed in 3-5 years in the future, we will be exactly where we are now—TEC will be a full member of the Communion according to the Covenant and consecrating non-celebate gays and lesbians and blessing same sex unions and marriages while the Archbishop points out the incompatability of TEC’s actions.

So the good Archbishop is criticizing (excuse me, criticising TEC. I agree with that other great British commentator:

Words, words, words, I’m so sick of words
I get words all day through
First from him, now from you
Is that all you blighters can do?!

Thank, you Miss Doolittle!

Fascinating to read and compare Peter and David’s responses.  David is in Australia and prefers the directness of the Aussie culture, while Peter is more in tune with the values of tact and duty.  It was fascinating to me to see the various British authors speak out after GC snubbed the Archbishop:  the Brits have a sense of duty, and the Americans were rebellious when they ignored what His Grace said, in person no less, to the GC.

As I read it, the ABC is laying the groundwork for a principled divorce, hoping for an amicable parting wherein both parties show each other respect.  Those who counsel couples going through divorce seek exactly the same kind of outcome—especially when there are children involved (in this case, various compassionate projects around the world).  Thus, the ABC attempts to temper the clear line in the sand with a soft innuendo of what may come (e.g. fewer invitations to join Anglican committees and agencies).  He is trying to lay down with clarity the way things will proceed without rubbing salt in the wound, so as to avoid stirring up a massive, venomous fight.  Of course this strategy only works if the majority of the Communion press ahead in the direction of Jerusalem Declaration and a robust Covenant.

Therein lies David’s reason for doubt:  will action by the ABC, the Primates, and/or the Global South, follow to match the principles laid out in the Archbishop’s Reflection?