(c) Breakdown of Trust

* There are real fears of wider agenda – over creedal issues ( the authority of scripture, the application of doctrine in life and ethics and even Christology and soteriology); other issues, such as lay presidency and theological statements that go far beyond the doctrinal definitions of the historic creeds, lie just over the horizon. Positions and arguments are becoming more extreme: not moving towards one another, relationships in the Communion continue to deteriorate; there is little sense of mutual accountability and a fear that vital issues are not being addressed in the most timely and effective manner.
* Through modern technology, there has been active fear-mongering, deliberate distortion and demonising. Politicisation has overtaken Christian discernment.
*Suspicions have been raised about the purpose, timing and outcomes of the Global Anglican Future Conference; there is some perplexity about the establishment of the Gafcon Primates’ Council and of FOCA which, with withdrawal from participation at the Lambeth Conference, has further damaged trust.
* There are growing patterns of Episcopal congregationalism throughout the communion at parochial, diocesan and provincial level. Parishes feel free to choose from whom they will accept Episcopal ministry; bishops feel free to make decisions of great controversy without reference to existing collegial structures. Primates make provision for Episcopal leadership in territories outside their own Province.
* There is distrust of the Instruments of Communion and uncertainty about their capacity to respond to the situation.
*Polarisation of attitudes in the Churches of the Communion, not just n the current situation – felt and expressed by conservative and liberal alike.

Read it all and please note the caution toward the top.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Lambeth 2008 • Windsor Report / Process

1. Randy Muller wrote: ...there is little sense of mutual accountability and a fear that vital issues are not being addressed in the most timely and effective manner. There is more than a “fear” that vital issues are not being addressed.  We are all witnessing that vital issues are not being addressed. July 22, 2:06 pm | [comment link]

2. AKHF wrote: If this is not an official statement of the WCG - who is the author? July 22, 2:29 pm | [comment link]

3. Henry wrote: I was wondering the same thing, Ann (#2).  They do seem to have a grasp of reality, which is a nice change! July 22, 2:35 pm | [comment link]

4. WilliamS wrote: Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the statement, “This document is NOT a report by the Windsor Continuation Group” means that it is not a FINAL report. It is merely the “Windsor Continuation Group Preliminary observations Part One.” So it is from the official group. I suspect that a final report is yet to come. William Shontz July 22, 2:40 pm | [comment link]

5. pendennis88 wrote: It is silly to complain about modern technology. And I fail to see any mention of the efforts by TEC to eliminate orthodox clergy and bishops, and bending the canons to do so, which has lead to much of the noted interventions and congregationalism in an effort not to allow orthodoxy to be put out of existence as part of the church.  These things have not developed in a vacuum. July 22, 2:45 pm | [comment link]

6. Timothy Fountain wrote: I think that item (f) is suspect.  The Ecumenical reps are not kvetching about organizational upheaval, but about revisionism. The observation’s shrill tone when it comes to “boundary crossing” is way beyond any reaction to revisionism (they only seem concerned with the process by which bishops “revise”, not any content of the revisions).  This makes any “inside strategy” even less believable.  We are way beyond even a distasteful “moral parity”  - this is all institutionalist stuff.  There’s no room in it for orthodox faith advocacy. July 22, 3:17 pm | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.