Author Archive
Written by: Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard
Monday, July 21st, 2008
One of the most serious questions left unanswered after the GAFCON conference was where the movement stood in relation to the proposed Anglican covenant. That question now appears to have been answered fairly unequivocally in two documents (from the GAFCON Theological Resource Team) on the St Andrew’s Draft Text to which the 7 GAFCON Primates refer in their response to the Archbishop of Canterbury. These are apparently based on pre-conference discussions in Jerusalem.
read more...
July 21 2008 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard
Thursday, December 6th, 2007
While a number of aspects of my recent mapping of the Anglican Communion have been criticised (see my broader response here), probably the most controversial and contested aspect was the suggestion that we need to move from a simple pro-I.10 and anti-I.10 stance in relation to sexual ethics and distinguish four positions on the spectrum.
read more...
December 06 2007 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007
As many predicted, some hopefully and some fearfully, the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) have given a positive assessment of the response of the The Episcopal Church’s (TEC) House of Bishops to the Primates’ Questions from Dar Es Salaam. In particular, in relation to the two key requests concerning TEC’s response to The Windsor Report (TWR), JSC conclude
read more...
October 17 2007 | Articles
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).
read more...
September 29 2007 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard
Saturday, February 17th, 2007
The Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates’ meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council produced instant responses of horror from those committed to Lambeth I.10 and delight from those wishing to see The Episcopal Church (TEC) remain fully integrated in the life of the Communion. It is not difficult to see why these were the initial reactions but it may be that a more measured judgment needs to be made which, while highlighting the serious flaws in the report’s analysis, also recognises its potential significance in shaping a reconfiguring of the relationship of TEC to the Communion, the Communion’s development and the ongoing Windsor process.
read more...
February 17 2007 | Articles