Comments: General Synod - Tuesday business

'it does not seek to override any province's canonical autonomy....'

This seems to be the point that the Covenant's fans want to repeat. And it's probably true: the covenant does not override autonomy, but it does provide the possibility of sanctions being applied to those who exercise their autonomy in ways that displease the instruments of communion. So autonomy is not affected in one sense, but that's probably not the real point.

Posted by Joe at Tuesday, 23 November 2010 at 5:52pm GMT

Perceptive comments on the Archbishop's Presidential Address over at the Episcopal Cafe:

Posted by Bill Moorhead at Tuesday, 23 November 2010 at 7:12pm GMT

Despite the effect of undergoing a shuffle, rhetoric used and then qualified, the Archbishop in his speech says the gays and lesbians issue should move on as theology used in Synod. This surely means other than his previous statements that Lambeth 1998 1:10 is settled.

What else can it mean? There is theology done, says he, outside Synod, there is a need for theology inside, and a need to move the debate on.

But if positions should not be fixed, he is fixed in one opinion - to get the Covenant passed. More rhetorical devices to be seen for what they are, so let's reason beyond them. The Church of England cannot derail the Covenant process: so he would be an Instrument of Communion of a Church cast out to the outer ring and so not ecumenically representative of Anglicanism? Is this why he wants it passed?

Posted by Pluralist at Tuesday, 23 November 2010 at 7:20pm GMT

The only important part of Rowan's speech is this:

"If we ignore this, we ignore what is already a real danger, the piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion and the emergence of new structures in which relation to the Church of England and the See of Canterbury are likely not to figure significantly."

Which states *everything* that bothers him:

The loss of his little empire. He and CofE will no longer be important (or, at least, think of themselves as such).

Rowan Williams is no bishop, but a cowardly self-promoter.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 24 November 2010 at 5:49am GMT

I must agree with the tenor of Mark Brunson's comments in this thread in that it all seems to boil down to a loss of power for Archbishop Rowan Williams and he is not looking like a shepherd/servant of his flock but instead as a man who sees himself in the Roman Catholic imperial model of bishop who is mourning the loss of his empire known as The See of Canterbury. This is so sad to me. I had higher expectations of the man. It would not surprise me in the least if he renounced his Anglican heritage for Roman Catholicism.

Posted by Chris Smith at Thursday, 25 November 2010 at 3:38am GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.