Hmmm.

Is it a coincidence that I had just this morning come across this quotation from St. Gregory Nazianzen? (Gregory was himself a bishop and one of the key theologians in defining Trinitarian orthodoxy at the second Ecumenical Council, the one that actually gave us the Nicene Creed) -

"I am determined to avoid every assembly of bishops. I have never seen a single instance in which a synod did any good. Strife and ambition dominate them to an incredible degree....From councils and synods I will keep myself at a distance, for I have experienced that most of them, to speak with moderation, are not worth much....I will not sit in the seat of synods, while geese and cranes confused wrangle. Discord is there, and shameful things, hidden before, are gathered into one meeting of rivals." (382 A.D., letter to Procopius).

First, do look at the original. The formatting is more clear, and so distinguishes among, for example, "provide guidance for the Communion; address pressing issues of global concern; are advocates for social justice in these situations."

My first reaction was that this undermines the hope of some to see the Primates' Meeting as the center gathering of a conciliar government for the Communion. I grant that the release speaks about "exercising authority;" but "persuasive wisdom" hardly seems the directive authority that some (and, notably, those who chose not to attend) would like. I'm also encouraged by the reference to the Marks of Mission as the measure of the life of the Communion.

That said, I'm curious how seeking "continuity and coherence in faith, order, and ethics" is balanced with "acknowledging diversity and giving space for difference." I also wonder how participants understood "taking counsel" and "being consultative." Elsewhere this past week there has been some consideration about how differently those who speak the Queen's English and those who speak American (North American? The Canadians may well be in the center) understand the word "consult."

Marshall Scott

They should add the ++ABC's comments to the media, that they could not allow the meeting to be shaped by those who refused to come.

That said I agree with Marshall that "consult" and "take counsel" may have vastly different meanings for us. Certainly for those who think the Primates meeting is the very sort of Council Gregory despises.

But the "plain meaning" of the list, if plain meaning be possible, is innocuous enough.

I concur with Marshall the proof is in the actual pudding and seeing how various tensions in language get fleshed out in the day to day interaction.

I personally am glad that Rowan went ahead with the gathering as it was. I prefer the version of the primates meeting that actually met.

Having said that, it seems ++Rowan is determined to let the Communion be exactly what it is--both Western and Global South streams and everything in between. How it can be anything else, and the way in which the Communion evolves from this point in its history seems to be the question at hand in the proposed Covenant. And accommodating everyone is impossible. I am of the opinion that the poor man is giving it his best shot.

But, if the those who chose to stay away continue to do so, I wonder if we all won't be better off in the long run. The West can have Canterbury and the Global South will create a new center (wasn't there some chatter years ago about doing so in Alexandria or some such place?).

Even were this to happen, i still suspect that various ministry partnerships across "streams" would happen. We share a common heritage and it would be inevitable.

"provide guidance for the Communion address pressing issues of global concern"

If I thought for a second that "guidance" was chosen as a neutral word to descibe the exercise of moral authority by persuasion and example, this would be fine.

I don't believe this for a second, however. It seems to me that, even without the irreconcileables, we are confronted with a prelatic coup d'eglise.