Auluslactinus has posted a careful analysis of what is really being said in the HoB resolutions and statement which were made public last evening. This is small piece of a much longer analysis:
“What the Bishops have done here is to call us and the Communion to a stability in controversy, to theology in tension. This is possible. But it requires a very difficult compromise from us all. On one hand, we need to give the conservative reasserters a place to stand. We stack the debate when we do not allow them places to cultivate virtue as they see fit in the same way they stack the debate by not allowing those who disagree with them a place to stand. I really do not think it is possible for the Diocese of San Joaquin and the Diocese of California to live together if they insist on remaking one another in their own image. At the same time, I sympathize with the discontents in both Dioceses. “
I might add a small piece of additional thought here too – I’m brooding on a longer piece that might get posted later in the week.
It seems to me that what the HoB statement really says to the Communion is that “we no longer trust you to act fairly towards us.” It appears that the bishops were most concerned with the Primatial Vicar scheme and the Communiqué’s statement that until the tensions are lowered (if ever) the border incursions by foreign bishops would continue – in spite of the fact that Windsor and the Report of the Sub-Committee on the Communion have stated that they should stop and are not helpful to resolving the present crisis.
I expect it’s that lack of trust that the structures of the Communion (AAC, Primates, Lambeth Conf. and the ABC) will treat TEC fairly and pastorally is the root cause of request for an urgent meeting with ++Williams. Until that trust is restored, any request that the HoB submit to requests to surrender any of their autonomy to the Communion simply isn’t going to happen.
Read the rest here: Bishops to Primates: Drop Dead (No, Scratch That)