I'm glad that the hermeneutical approach to the Sub-Group report that I posted Thursday night has picked up some synergistic traction. In addition to the inestimable honor of being on the same page with Christopher Wells, Graham Kings has weighed in sympathetically from across the Atlantic. Craig Uffman ("over-acceptance") and Leander Harding ("ultimatum in a velvet glove") have each posted independent analyses that support the view I articulated, and George Conger (via video interview) has added his general assent as well. Across the aisle, Jim Naughton and Mark Harris both came to pretty much the same conclusions as I did at the same time. It's quite evident to them the TEC is a lot more boxed in than it used to be.
I've been a little annoyed by commentators on both sides saying that 66% is a "passing grade," that the report gives TEC a "clean bill of health." I know there's been a lot of grade inflation since I was a student, but 66% used to be an 'F' and I believe it is still a 'D' in most places. Plus, even in the two categories where the report seems to say "You made it over the line," there are doubts, conditions, and assumptions. So it really isn't even a two-thirds score. Let's keep it real here.
That said, I will agree with Matt Kennedy and Kendall Harmon and others that, if nothing else happens in Tanzania by way of at least setting out a framework for a Communion-based structure of pastoral care for American Anglicans who are justifiably alienated from TEC, the meeting will be a disappointment. For now at least, though, I believe that will happen.
Very much how I see it. The report with regard to the actual performance of TEC is either naive, or a deliberate and strategic misreading but it is in no way a passing grade. I am little bemused by the anger directed toward commentators simply offering analysis not endorsement.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that if alternate oversight is not clearly established the Primates meeting will have missed the moment. I also think this is likely to come.