Comments: yet more comment on General Convention

unless i am mistaken, the anglican communion institute has not bothered to track compliance with section 155 of the windsor report. emails to them on my part have thus far been unanswered.

i'm normally very happy with thinking anglicans, but it is not appropriate (in my opinion) to contribute in the little way this post did to the thinking that compliance with the windsor report is something that only canada and the us can do.

even a little note, saying "they did not address section 155" would be useful.

we must not permit the unthinking anglicans to continue to pretend that section 155 of windsor does not exist, and its equivalent in all the other things the over-eager anglican episcopate has been dishing out.

Posted by thomas bushnell, bsg at Tuesday, 27 June 2006 at 12:51am BST

Once again I find Andrew Goddard short of the standard he is capable of. The American Church has responded to the Windsor Report far more fulsomely than any other member Church of the Anglican Communion has at this stage.

Indeed I believe they have set a standard of “obedience” to the principles set out in Windsor that other Churches will find difficult to emulate.

While the preamble to Windsor clearly states that nothing it contains is by way of a “judgment” just the beginning of a process, Mr Goddard seems to take a contrary view and lays out his paper accordingly. Here is its principle failure and one that leads him to make assessments and predictions rather wide of the mark.

His own Church has not even debated the Windsor Report in any detail and I guess from what I hear and read finds itself possibly even more divided on the principles Windsor tries to lay down.

I am (not surprisingly) horrified by the concessions the American Church has made to the Windsor compromise and feel they will come to rue the day they allowed themselves to be bamboozled into accepting its reinvention of the Communion.

Most significantly I am amazed at their commitment to the Anglican Covenant, and what that offers for the future. Mr Goddard fails to bring this to bear at all in his analysis of the minutiae of the deliberations of GC2006, and misses the long view completely.

All the more surprising when one considers how he himself was amongst those who produced the Consultation Paper we are currently considering on the proposed Covenant.
The “short view” he epitomizes in this current document is propaganda and decidedly unhelpful, he must do a great deal better if he is to maintain any real influence on the course of events.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Tuesday, 27 June 2006 at 1:28am BST
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.