Global South delegates on ACC issue statement

Several members of the Anglican Consultative Council describing themselves as Global South delegates have issued a “Response to ACC-14 in Jamaica.”

Regarding the Covenant, the Global South delegates do not criticize the process of deliberation or the outcome. Indeed, they say, “many people took the middle road position in order to give time to improve the Covenant.”

Regarding the moratorium continued interventions in other Provinces passed by ACC-14 the Global South delegates – virtually all from provinces engaged in border crossing – blithely ignore it. Instead they say,

Some of us who had previously had significant doubts about the wisdom of these interventions have become aware from those whose provinces have taken this bold step that these interventions were both necessary and justified, and others that they were understandable, as an answer to a distress call.

As reported by ENS, here’s how the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a press question about “the agreed moratoria on the Consecration of Bishops living in a same gender union”:

Williams was asked how he would interpret a move by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church to countermand Resolution 2006-B033, which asked bishops and diocesan standing committees not to consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

“Action to negate that resolution would instantly suggest to many people in the communion that the Episcopal Church would prefer not to go down the route of closer structural bonds and that particular kind of mutual responsibility,” he said.

In the same ENS report we have this:

Williams reiterated remarks he made during the conference and in his presidential address that provinces of the communion that choose to adopt the proposed Anglican covenant when it is made available will be showing that they “want to create a more intense relationship between them — a fuller and freer exchange between them.”

“Others are not choosing that and the difficult question is: what is the best and most constructive relationship between those who do choose and those who do not,” he added.

Such a relationship will not make for an “inner circle and an outer circle” but, instead, some other kind of structure with “groups of Anglicans associated for different purposes in different ways.”

Where does that place groups who continue interventions in other Provinces?

Past Posts