The Archbishop of the West Indies has joined the Archbishops of Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda and the Southern Cone in support of the proposed ordination of Canon Bill Atwood as missionary bishop in the US for the Anglican Church of Kenya. What he had to say may be read HERE.
Archbishop Gomez is entitled to his opinion, of course, and his opinion in this case is no surprise.
The good Archbishop, however, is chair of the Covenant Design Group and as such is acting as a member of a group that is an instrumentality of at least two and possibly three of the instruments of unity of the Anglican Communion - the Archbishop of Canterbury (who appointed him), the Primates Meetings (which has recommended such a group) and the Anglican Consultative Council that funds such meetings. While he has every freedom to say what he pleases there is at least some expectation that he might be open to thinking that the Windsor Report concerns about incursions into jurisdictions need to be acknowledged.
His comments say nothing to the Windsor request for honoring jurisdictional boundaries. He was not a signatory to the paper arguing that Windsor was wrong or failed in its request that there not be further jurisdictional boundary crossings, but he might as well have been.
Essentially the Windsor Report which gave rise to the current round of discussion concerning an Anglican Covenant has been ignored by the string of pearls - Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya - but it is clear that they already believe that what is involved is "rescue." Archbishop Gomez doesn't use that language either, but he believes Kenya is doing good work here.
Instead, the Archbishop simply moves ahead, not bothering to make a special claim against the wishes of Windsor, not concerning himself with justification by rescue. Rather he argues that Kenya is making provision to give pastoral coverage to congregations already under its care. In other words, the Archbishop of the West Indies believes Kenya's incursion into the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church is appropriate and not worthy of comment.
So the chair of the committee drafting an Anglican Covenant acts without the slightest reference to the document that gave rise to the effort he is charged to lead, without a moment of hesitation about Kenya's actions and apparently without regard to the possibilities that such actions will make formulation of any covenant all the more difficult.
I have stated before that I believe Archbishop Gomez should not be the chair of this committee. His statement in support of Kenya's proposed ordination only confirms my sense that he is unsuited to the task having already formed the belief that any covenant worth its salt will on the face of it exclude The Episcopal Church.
The Archbishop closes his statement by saying, "...the willingness of the Province of Kenya to collaborate with the other orthodox Anglicans in the United States could serve the point towards a creation of a viable, stable and orthodox Anglican presence in the United States." In other words, the Archbishop is touting the Kenya initiative as part of the GRAND PLAN the purpose of which is to create an "orthodox Anglican presence in the United States."
He is unsuitable for the position he holds as chair of a major instrumentality of the "Instruments of Unity" in the Anglican Communion.
If he does not resign, or if the Archbishop of Canterbury does not request his resignation, the Covenant Design Group is without creditability.