Archbishop Gomez lets it hang out there.

The Bahama Journal, January 16^th, posted an article by Rogan M. Smith, based on an press conference by Archbishop Gomez in Nassau on Monday the 15^th. The press conference seems to have been related to the meeting of the Covenant Design Committee, meeting January 15-19, although it is never made clear in the story. No one is quoted except the Archbishop. Perhaps, this being a local story with a local star, no one else was very interesting.

It tells us very little about the Archbishop except that he is totally opposed to homosexuality. He is quoted as saying, “My position is that God, in his wisdom, determined that the human race is made up of male and female persons and that they complement each other. The teaching of the Bible is the coming together of man and woman [and that] constitutes marriage in the biblical pattern. Any other provision will be contrary to the biblical tradition."

Later his is quoted again, this time on the matter of gay marriage and or blessing, “I couldn’t accept that because it is contrary to the teaching of scripture. What is interesting is that no one disputes that in every instance in the Bible in which sexuality is mentioned, homosexual practice is always a negative. It’s never commended in the Bible and even those who are trying to change the anthropology have to admit that the text does not support it. So, they find ways of reinterpreting the text. Scholars will always find some linguistic way of getting behind the text to make it imply something else."

So as if we already didn’t know this, the Archbishop is against homosexual practice, believes it and any blessing of gay relationships contrary to the teaching of scripture and that some scholars find some “linguistic” way of subverting the plain meaning of scripture.

More interesting is this tidbit:

"This is a pivotal moment for the Anglican Communion and that’s why the Archbishop has appointed this group because we cannot continue to drift along as we have been doing, and we’ve had one crisis over homosexuality," he said.

"There is a possibility that we could be faced with another crisis shortly in the communion that will emanate from a group in Australia. There’s a group there that is talking about having lay people presiding at the Eucharist. That’s becoming an issue that’s being talked about more and more and if it does it will present the communion with a serious theological and pastoral issue. Our problem in the communion today is we have no existing mechanism for automatically dealing with these issues."

It would appear the Archbishop believes that behind the search for a covenant is the fear that the sort of independent action taken by the Episcopal Church might be taken elsewhere. Perhaps that, not the activities in the US, is the driving force in the energies on this covenant process.

But no, the independent action that most upsets the Archbishop seems to be about homosexuality. He begins this press conference by giving his take on the crisis of the moment, not the general need for a covenant. He sticks with it, only veering to one side to take a swipe at a future discontent, and ends with a poke in the eye at scholarship that he doesn’t like.

The lay presidency issue is brought in to convince the wavering that we have to have a covenant, otherwise we face more and more crises. But the covenant matter is high on the talking point list of the realignment crowd because it is the way into a proposal that there be “constitutant” members of the Communion and a second class membership for those who don’t meet the criteria.

So the talking point is, “We have to have a Covenant because ‘we have no existing mechanism for automatically dealing with these issues.’” The operant word is “automatically.” What is wanted is a means of striking down any independent actions by any Province. Had that mechanism been in place women would not be ordained period and Barbara Harris would not have been ordained bishop. Had that mechanism been in place Bishop Robinson would not have been ordained.

Of course he doesn’t mention that several Provinces have taken independent action to decide that they will open missions or take on parishes in the United States. Such actions are of course contrary to ancient pastoral and ecclesial concerns and tradition. Would such a mechanism mean Nigeria, Uganda and the Southern Cone would be issued citations? Why doesn’t he site the independent actions of these bodies in his list?

Archbishop Gomez alone seems to have been quoted in the Bahama Journal. I don’t know if anyone else was interviewed. With this as a beginning of a week of discussion I am not at all hopeful.

There has been considerable discussion of the makeup of the Group and its leadership. I have said that I believe it is a mistake for Archbishop Gomez to head this up. The Archbishop of Canterbury said he would have trouble finding anyone who wasn't one way or the other opinionated.

His interview (even if it were written poorly) gives no assurance that initial doubts were unjustified. There is no voice except his. No voice for any other position on either ordination or blessing. No voice from lay persons or priests… there are on the Committee three lay persons, two of whom are women, there are four priests including representatives of the AAC and the ABC. But no voice from them. No voice from any other bishop. His voice alone.

If he alone is left to tell us, then we get his read on the state of affairs in the communion, and his read is that we ought to be wringing our hands and filled with fears of crisis.

I am not moved.