Archbishop Anis' critique cuts both ways. When bishops in Uganda didn't oppose proposed legislation calling for the execution of homosexuals and requiring others to expose them and turn them in, they were making a decision in light of what is prevalent and accepted in their culture, rather than in light of the teaching of the Scriptures, for in the Bible, Christ Jesus says: "Treat others the same way you want to be treated" (Luke 6:31). (This is presuming, of course, that the Ugandan bishops, like most human beings driven by self-preservation, do not want to be exposed, turned in or executed, so in accord with Jesus' primary commandment, they would not countenance doing those things to others.) Such behavior doesn't seem to be heeding "the authority of Scripture" -- or the example of Christ Jesus.

With all due respect Bishop Anis giving either body the status of a Council has been rejected since these groups first began meeting. It is the so called orthodox who are proposing this novel innovation without any more process than their say so.

Just as TEC rejected population as a base for representation at General Convention and held to a one Diocese one vote, so too has Anglicanism, gathered these last 130 years refused to be more than genial meetings for exchange of views.

To press for Council authority will bust the Communion more surely than any action taken by TEC. I will gladly not be part of a Communion where power becomes so centralized.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Through the Looking Glass.

Ann, there's the answer to your question: "How can we make a covenant when there are such different realities?"

June Butler

Whose voice are we actually hearing here, I wonder.

Roger, I have three guesses: Christopher Seitz, Ephraim Radner, Mark McCall. True Anglican revisionists.

"Contemporary cultural norms are given more authority than Scripture."

Um..no, this is not true at all. The acceptance of gay people and gay relationships has happened not because of cultural pressures--The Episcopal Church has been way ahead of the dominant culture on this--but because of a cocktail of personal experience, scientific discovery, spiritual discernment, and careful reading of the Scriptures as authoritative documents first and foremost on how to treat each other, and a careful reading of the words attributed to Jesus about how to interpret received Scriptures when reality doesn't match up any longer. You are entirely WRONG, Archbishop Anis. And that isn't even close to how wrong you are about the shoulds and should nots of Anglican polity, you don't change the way we relate just because you're so uncomfortable with one of the Provinces that you feel you and yours should be able to tell said Province what to do--or else!--to make yourself feel better.

The archbishop is apparently lost. He thinks he is in a trans-national Anglican CHURCH. He has not figured out that this is a COMMUNION.

FWIW
jim Beyer

I read the full text with a sinking heart. This man is a bishop and a Primate, but so woefully ignorant of the Anglican tradition and its actual history and teaching! He gets Hooker completely backwards (when he declares that "people need to examine human reason and traditions of the church in the light of the Word of God."). He prooftexts Hooker, without any regard for immediate and larger context, so as completely to misrepresent the judicious RH's view. (Hooker's real position is that there are some very few things Scripture reveals that are not discoverable by reason -- such as that Jesus is the Son of God; but that even to understand these reason is needed; and for all else, demonstrative reason must rule even over our understanding of Scripture, and certainly over tradition.)

To see him lauded in the comments as a defender of Anglican Orthodoxy also, to quote his host in other contexts, makes the heart sad. Orthodox, maybe, Anglican, no.

I suspect Anis really means conciliatory among "like minded" Primates, no? Ironic that someone would continue to advance the notion of the Primates as instruments of Communion, when in practice, the behavior of some of them indicates they are instruments of dysfunction.

The Archbishop's argument is based on two premises, one of which is false and one of which is faulty.

The assumption that the Anglican Communion is in crisis is false. Only those who craven lust for power view the state of affairs in the Communion as dangerously critical. In reality, there is no crisis. On the other hand, views such as that of the Archbishop do indeed threaten to create one. If people begin to accept the premise that the Anglican Communion (read: 'the Anglican Church') is in crisis, then people may in fact choose to accede the authority that God has entrusted to them as faithful protestants. In that case, the Communion would indeed enter a crisis, a critical destruction of the virtues of autonomy and autocephaly that the Communion has represented since its emergence in the late 1800's.

In terms of Christian history, the Communion is still young, hence fragile. It is vulnerable to the plays for power that some are executing now. The rest of us bear the responsibility of doing all we can to preserve the distinctive blessings and the distinctive burdens of what it is to be the Anglican Communion.

Further, and more obviously, the presumption that the principle of: ‘What affects all, should be decided by all’ is valid in the Anglican context is demonstrably faulty. One is immediately struck with the irony of this doctrine being touted by someone of the Anglican tradition: the Church of England having clearly denied this very principle in order to claim its right to exist.

Certainly what the Church in England did under Archbishop Cranmer and King Henry VIII had dire implications for 'all' the Church! Would Archbishop Anis suggest that England was wrong to have enacted its reformation? Or is one correct in inferring that Archbishop Anis defines 'all' not as 'all Christians' but only as 'all Anglicans'? If so, then one realizes that the Archbishop's limits on 'all' are as sectarian as any other inaccurate use of the term. It then become the Archbishop's burden to explain why this peculiar use of the principle is restricted in such a way that it serves what appear to be his predisposition and affection for autocratic power.

The respective polities of the Churches of the Anglican Communion define 'all' as those who are members of each Church, respectively. When it comes to governance, each Church has its own membership, therefore its own 'all.' These polities result directly from England's rejection of Rome's claim to define 'all' for all Christians.

There is no crisis, there is only claim to same. There is no 'Anglican Church,' there is only an effort to claim same. If the political powers of the Anglican Communion push an attempt to centralize more power to themselves, they will find a great many members of the organic Church, the 'all' of the Churches of the Communion, leaving their Churches; leaving the emerging autocracy and oligarchy; and reiterating what England told Rome, what America told England, 'NO! We value our independence as much as our interdependence. You will not take away one in the name of the other.' These folks will leave to strengthen expressions of faith in community that are more democratic and organic, as perhaps once was the Church of England and certainly as is, yet, the Episcopal Church. And the discarded remains of the Communion will find itself quickly and increasingly irrelevant to anything having to do with Christian witness to the wider world.

He's killed the Covenant in the House of Deputies. That's good news! I think it was dead before this, but it sure can't survive now. Ditto with Canada, South Africa and others.

Maybe now we can stop obsessing about strange doings in Anglican Land and move forward. The political crisis is over; it has been for years. We are a faithful, vibrant, confident Church; we need to act like it. Let us turn our attention away from these external distractions and start solving the real problems we have in our parishes, dioceses and seminaries. We need to get growing again. There are plenty of successful models in our Church, which might get more attention if we do less yammering about covenants, primates and Lambeth.

Can we please get on with it now?

Josh Thomas, I would not be so sure Canada will not adopt the Covenant. I hope we don't; but the politics of that will be tricky up here, where not ticking people off tends to trump gumption. Just sayin.

Actually, what most concerned me on reading the entire speech is the emphasis on "biblical literacy" and the study of Scripture. He clearly believes the most important point is to know the content of Scripture - the capacity to memorize and quote. In a North American and European context "biblical literacy" includes study about Scripture, as well as study of Scripture. I fear this is as much a reflection of his culture as when he accuses us. This is, after all, much like his Muslim neighbors, who are so committed to a perspective that "the word" is beyond interpretation that any translation of Q'uran must be so identified, to distinguish it from "the real thing." (That he might have learned it from Evangelical Christians and not from Muslims doesn't change the fact that it's an apt parallel and an easy fit.)

I have written here at the Cafe about the significant cultural difference between expectations/perceptions of leadership for folks who are coming from a largely individualistic culture and those coming from a largely communalist/tribal culture. I'm not surprised that he wants a more conciliar form of leadership for the Communion. I would not be surprised if in his experience most decisions, from the family to the community, are made by the elder men assembled. I think this, as much as any other difference, will prevent re-consolidation of the Communion-as-we-have-known-it. And as for the Western conservatives who have agitated many of our differences? They will also learn this lesson in time; and they won't enjoy it.

Marshall Scott

The principle of: ‘What affects all, should be decided by all’ is crucial to avoid further crisis.

...and by "decided by all" he means small number of men in purple! :-0

Un-freakin-believable.

JC Fisher

The last thing I need is an archbishop telling me how to interpret scripture. My local study group does it just fine!

JCF, that's another thing: Windsor and Anis got the "What touches all compeltely backwards. It is not about unanimity or majority rule, but about the protection of the minority. On this basis, Lambeth 1998.1.10 is overruled because it imposed (actually, it "recommended") a position not agreed to by all, in particular by those whom it most concerned -- gays and lesbians.