Half Empty? Half Full? Too Little? Too Late?
Written by: Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard
Saturday, September 29th, 2007
In attempting to evaluate the HoB response it is necessary to sketch the key stages in the four years of the Windsor Process since the Lambeth Commission was created in October 2003 (Section I). It is then necessary to examine very carefully the wording of the HoB response in the light of that history (Section II). Here a major question arises concerning the stance of the interpreter. Some people, as becomes especially obvious in times of crisis, are optimistic and generous (‘surely it’s half full’) while others tend to be pessimistic and suspicious (‘actually, it’s half empty (at best)’). Among the factors determining one’s stance are not only issues of personality and psychology but past history in a relationship and political position (those working to hold the Communion together are probably tempted to be ‘half full’ people, those who believe it has already fallen apart and some major realignment is necessary will tend to be ‘half empty’ interpreters). My own tendency is, I think, to be ‘half full’ but the crucial test is careful examination of the wording to determine exactly what is (and what is not) being said and how it relates to what has been asked and what has been said in the past. In the light of detailed analysis a summary assessment is offered of the HoB’s response (Section III) before the implications for five areas – TEC, Communion evaluation, Windsor bishops, Common Cause and Lambeth 2008 – are sketched (Section IV) and, finally, a conclusion is offered (Section V).
September 29 2007 | Articles