The full text is here.

View the original post

I recommend accessing the letter from the official ABC website here as there is explanatory material concerning the key paragraphs.

Three reactions:

First, it seems to me that tying the anti-border-crossing sanctions to the recent consecration was not politically astute.

Second, reading the reactions over at StandFirm, it appears that there is a core within the American separatists which has been infected with the Continuing bug and therefore wants permanent separation from Catuar as an end. They therefore are inclined to make the border-crossing problem as bad as possible. This is a significant weakness in what is presented, not because the sanctions are weak, but because it now seems to me that an aggressive solution has to set the border-crossing aside and indeed embrace it. Instead he has applied sanctions which are altogether too much like what the parties involved would want to do anyway, out of spite.

Third, I have to go with Ian in assessing this as too little for anyone to care about. It seems to me that the perhaps the only sufficiently strong reaction would have been for him personally to declare every bishop who participated in the consecration as persona non grata—avoiding communion with them, etc., if not to the level of denying their offices.

A few thoughts.  This letter, absent anything more, is very much “too little, too late”, an abdication of Rowan’s responsibilities, the probable end of any meaningful Anglican Communion, etc., etc.  But (as others on other websites have written) this letter is very intriguing in that it suggests that this is just the beginning of the REAL conversation.  Again, as others on other websites have written, if Rowan actually does what he hints at (i.e., disinviting the affected Provincial representatives from the Primate’s Meetings, and demonstrating the moral leadership necessary to have them suspended from the ACC and JSC) then this letter could be the first sign of the watershed event in the Anglican Communion.  So in other words, we need to repeat the time worn words “we shall see.”  Many people (myself included) have our severe doubts as to Rowan’s capability or will to do what needs doing, but, on the other hand, it can also be argued that it isn’t until now that Rowan’s back is against the wall.  TEC has brazenly declared its intent to violate the moratoria and the Global South has similarly indicated that the Instruments of Unity are hanging by the merest thread of credibility.

I don’t have the same problem with Rowan’s “equating” of the border-crossing (i.e. reactive) violations with the two sexuality (i.e. primary) violations.  However, I certainly DO have a problem with the fact that there is no addressing at all about what to do in North America.  It’s one thing to say consistently “all must be done in order” in response to an emergency situation (and Rowan must realize that SOMETHING must be done in North America) but then not offer any assistance whatsoever.  What I think Rowan needed to have done is make some reference to the need for an extra-Provincial holding structure for the ACNA/AMiA types which is “in order” pending final resolution of this mess.  Border-crossing always was a reaction against Communion-breaking innovations in North American, and these innovations have continued and TEC and ACoC have indicated that these innovations are seen as permanent.  So the “need” which led to the border-crossings is stronger then ever.  If Rowan takes border-crossings off the table, he needs to replace it with something.

I also wonder at some of the finer definitions of some things…

For example, what does it mean when he writes

provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria

  Does this mean that permissive as well as active policies are culpable (e.g. we will let dioceses violate the moratoria, but don’t command them to do so)?  What about policies which were adopted which logically translate to action which later no longer technically violates the moratoria (e.g. GAFCON provinces which initially engaged in border crossing but then released their bishops to the ACNA, thus no longer technically border-crossing, but fully recognizing the ACNA bishops)?  What about diocesan decisions that violate the moratoria, but which are neither officially approved of nor officially disapproved of by the Province (e.g. a diocese which openly permits same-sex marriages but is not disciplined by the Province, OR if say a GAFCON province turns over its North American operations to a single diocesan bishop, officially washing their hands of it, but allowing it to go on anyway)?

In short, this letter puts the pieces in place for what needs to be done, but I am yet to be convinced that Rowan will yet actually make the necessary moves.  However, this is, nevertheless, a lot more from Rowan then I was expecting.