I'm re-posting this response from a thread over at Fr. Jake - It sums up what I believe the effect of B033 will be. I don't think any of us thought it would appease the Duncan/Akinola crowd. It was the "middle" of the Anglican Communion I was concerned with.
There are a lot of posts on this thread that would seem to imply that the B033 vote, for all of the pain and ambivalence it causes, was for nothing. I would reply, "Don't be so sure."
Yesterday I posted, and I would reiterate today, that nothing the GC could have done would have appeased Akinola or Duncan or the AAC, etc. Had GC passed a resolution clearly utilizing "Windsor" language they would have claimed that those who passed it didn't really mean it. Proof for this: Gene Robinson is still NH's bishop, same-sex blessings will still happen, none of the PB candidates were orthodox enough, etc. I am quite certain that they would have denounced anything passed.
The B033 resolution was intended, I believe, to appeal to those in the middle, both in the Anglican Communion and at home in the Episcopal Church. And I would be willing to predict that it will work on both accounts. There were several bishops in 2003 who voted in favor of Robinson's consecration who would not do so today--Peter James Lee and Geralyn Wolf come to my mind. My bishop, Tom Shaw, one of the most liberal, may also take a more conservative approach this time around, even as he has long been a supporter of GLBT folks. And I would suspect the new PB would fall into line as well. No doubt these are just a few who will be convinced. Likewise in the Anglican Communion. The goal was not to convince the radically orthodox, but moderate Anglicans world-wide from such places as Scotland, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, etc. Rowan Williams will not want to alienate these constituencies any more than he would want to see the Global South group split off. Any dramatic move against the Episcopal Church, following the B033 vote, would cause such outrage that the Communion would simply crumble. Williams doesn't want this and will, I predict, do any and everything he can to prevent it.
As I wrote yesterday, the Episcopal Church has many friends throughout the Communion. We have simply to encourage them to add their voices to this global conversation. Duncan and his ilk will not be happy, but then he's not really in charge, despite what he may think to the contrary....
As a post-script, I would note that I do not know how I would have voted. I have stongly liberal/progressive credentials as a priest from Mass and an EDS alum. No one would question my commitment to GLBT inclusion. I am sure that PB-elect Schori's address was quite convincing. And it may be the case that she spent a lot of good will capital by taking this action. However, there will be many others in our church, those in the middle, who will see this as a sign of true leadership. Only time will tell.
My advice to all of us would be to keep our church, its GLBT members, the Communion, and our new PB in our prayers. The other side is full of anxiety, which is exemplified in their many missives to the communion. For they did not get what they wanted. They wanted the church to reject Windsor's recommendation completely. The Episcopal Church did not comply. Desite their rhetoric, they fear B033 will in fact be enough.
So, now it is time to do as one of the bishops said on Tuesday evening: put the anxiety back where it belongs, on the shoulders of the ABC and the Communion. We have done as the Arbp of York requested and shown the marks of the crucifixion. It is now up to others.
Whatever happens, all will be well. Swedish bishop Kriser Stendahl has said that as Christians we are in bondage to hope. Let us all place our faith in that hope.
The Rev. Matthew Cadwell
Diocese of Massachusetts
fxhwk ibgthrkfo ujwtdko qxdc awdtxjop qugx jbemk
Posted by: wepy vqjotcxyg | July 01, 2006 at 10:42 AM