Given the debacle that took place at the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Jamaica last month, one might be tempted to consider the matter somewhat moot. Quite the opposite is in fact the case, I believe.
The text of the resolution, of course, calls for the voluntary and provisional agreement of the Episcopal Church to abide by the terms of the most recent draft of the propsed covenant while we study what impact it may (or may not) have on our Constitution & Canons. If the ACC had actuallly endorsed the covenant and formally commended it, critics of D020 could well argue that its passage would nonetheless be a de facto acceptance on a permanent basis. But given what actually did transpire in Jamaica, that argument gets no traction.
Instead, with that pressure removed, General Convention is free to act in a way that is consistent with the generosity of spirit evinced in 2006 resolutions A159 (Commitment of Interdependence in the Anglican Communion), A160 (Expression of Regret), and A165 (Commitment to Windsor and Listening Process). If we indeed meant what we said in those resolutions, there is no plausible reason not to enact D020 in Anaheim.
If TEC would not want to include section four of the Covenant, why would it be willing to abide by it until section four is "fine tuned"?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, in light of Jamaica, is not the whole point, and your resolution, moot?
ReplyDelete