CROSSING THE RUBICON?

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

At a Halifax presser during the Anglican Organization of Canada’s General Synod, Anglican Communion Secretary General Kenneth Kearon said some things that I have to believe won’t improve the moods of Mrs. Schori or other Anglican liberals.

What about the notion that sanctions can only be applied if a province formally approves same-sex marriages, say? Should Canada be off the hook since it hasn’t formally taken that step? For now:

[Kearon] "Formally in a proper way, in an organized way by resolution where a national body such as General Synod or the House of Bishops has made a decision against the moratoria, that’s what the Archbishop of Canterbury is talking about in his Pentecost Letter."

Insert “but” here.

"However, if you read right down to the last two paragraphs of my June 2nd memorandum, I’ve raised two questions that I want to raise. One: What is the situation where a bishop or diocese repeatedly breaks the moratorium and at what point does a province have responsibility for that? At some stage we are going to have to address that. And secondly, when a province has within its House of Bishops a bishop who is intervening in another province, does that constitute an intervention by that province? An equally difficult problem to answer. I’ve raised those two questions because they were questions for me. But at the moment, the Archbishop of Canterbury is just dealing with where a province has formally in its Synod or House of Bishops made a decision" [to break one of the moratoria.]

You know the old saying. Fool me once, shame on me. Elect and consecrate a lesbian bishop when the Communion specifically asked you not to, shame on you.

"Given that the development in Los Angeles [the consecration of a non-celibate lesbian] meant that gracious restraint was not being exercised, I think the Archbishop did have to act. What I think he’s done is say, “Look, the consecration of Mary Glasspool is a full, well-thought out decision of the Episcopal Church. There are implications to that decision. In that action, it is clear that The Episcopal Church does not share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion as expressed through the Instruments of Communion time and time again. They’ve made that decision and that’s fine. But if they don’t share the faith and order, then they shouldn’t represent the Communion on faith and order questions and that’s why ecumenical dialogues are the obvious ones where issues of faith and order are discussed and they ought to be discussed by bodies that share that faith and order. At the very minimum to be honouring to our ecumenical partners so that they know who they are in conversation with. Similarly on the Standing Committee on Faith and Order, if you don’t share the faith and order of the Anglican Communion then it’s an odd position to be in to be making decisions on faith and order. So we’ve asked the people to serve as consultants not as decision-making members. I think that’s an obvious working out of a decision not to exercise gracious restraint."

And did I happen to mention that we’re going to need a whole lot more than leftist bumper stickers from here on out?

"The issue of same-sex relationships is on the agenda of every political body and every church though a lot of churches may not be facing it in the same way as the Anglican Communion is. I think we have to articulate the question appropriately for ourselves as churches and not just simply buy into the sociopolitical agenda of same-sex issues. I think it presents itself to the Church in a different way. It raises questions about biblical authority, the way in which decisions are made, the way Communion is maintained and expressed. They’re the issues we are gradually and very slowly trying to address."

So unless you’re prepared to name names, don’t bother playing that “double standard” card because that dog won’t hunt.

"The Communion at the international level receives from churches what those churches communicate to the wider world. We don’t dive down into the detailed life of a particular church, parish or diocese. I don’t go checking. We take what the senior authorized bodies of each church decide on issues that are relevant to the wider Anglican Communion. What a synod has said “formally” means probably by resolution. That would be my interpretation."

Oh, and while I’ve got you all, while “border crossing” isn’t helpful, it also isn’t on the same moral level as homosexual pointy-hats and same-sex marriages.

"The Windsor Report said they were not morally equivalent and the Windsor Continuation Group Report in 2009 agreed but said they were equally damaging."

Wow. If Lambeth Palace is already beginning to think beyond the limitations of Dr. Williams’ Pentecost letter, as Kearon seems to suggest, I see very little here to encourage the Episcopalians and a great deal to alarm them.

“It is clear that The Episcopal Church does not share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion as expressed through the Instruments of Communion time and time again?”

“I think the Archbishop did have to act?”

“I think we have to articulate the question appropriately for ourselves as churches and not just simply buy into the sociopolitical agenda of same-sex issues?”

Are you kidding me?

How do TEO and its supporters see statements like those as anything other than a smackdown and, since Kearon is probably uttering the sentiments of his boss, a smackdown that came straight from the top?

From the looks of things, Rowan Williams may just have had a breaking point after all and that breaking point might have been Los Angeles. I have to think that most of the Anglican left will be bat crap insane by morning and that their “Goodbye Canterbury” campaign will be much further along.


Editor's Note: the interview with Kearon is posted below.