There has been a “pulling back from the language of sanctions and teeth” in the crafting of the Anglican Covenant, the Primate of Australia told reporters at the Primates’ Meeting in Alexandria on Feb 2.
The Most Rev. Philip Aspinall said that whereas earlier drafts of the covenant envisioned sanctions for violations, disciplinary mechanisms were not likely to make it into the final draft.
“Hitting people over the head with sticks” was not what the Anglican Communion wanted to do to provinces that violated the Covenant, Archbishop Aspinall said. Instead, the covenant””designed to set the parameters of Anglican life and worship””is evolving into a document about “koinonia”¦fellowship”¦of communion” between churches, and would not be a sanctions-based legal code, he explained.
No surprise here.
I am just an unfrozen caveman cleric, so humor me: how is a covenant without consequences any different than the anarchy we have now?
If indeed Abp. Aspinall said what he is reported to have said and in the context he appears to have said it — and I don’t really know — he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Why do I say this? He is not on the drafting committee. What inside scoop has he managed to garner into the minds and intentions of people he barely knows? Indeed, the only Primate onthe drafting Committee now is Abp. John Chew, and HE certainly has another idea. Furthermore, the drafting committee has not yet met for its drafting meeting (end of March). Aspinall doesn’t speak for me,and I am on the drafting committee, and I have no intention of “pulling back” from the need to articulate covenant in the concreteterms of its mutual accountability. If the Archbishop thinks that this amounts to “hitting people over the head with sticks” he is both theologically and ecclesially ignorant as well as seemingly malicious in his characterizations of what we are about and should be about. This is all irresponsible posturing, presenting private and ill-informed wishes as if they were a common and faithful decision, and hoping people believe it as a fact. If indeed he said it.
You can listen to what Dr Aspinall said at http://www.aco.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/2/3/ACNS4567 (the recording is at the foot of the page).
The drafting committee referred to is the group of primates at the meeting charged with preparing their communique. It is led by the Primate of Burundi, the Most Rev. Bernard Ntahoturi. The committee also includes the Most Rev Alan Harper of Ireland, the Most Rev. Ian Earnest of the Indian Ocean, the Most Rev. Paul Kwong of Hong Kong, and the Most Rev. Carlos Touche-Porter of Mexico, with the assistance of the Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron, the ACC’s Deputy Secretary General.
So cross border ministry does not matter if we are in covenant. Nor does theology, doctrine, practice, or purpose. Anyone can do anything so long as we give lip service to the idea that we are somehow “together”. Why, the CofE can now embrace every denomination in the world, whether they will or not! Think of the possibilities!
When I was young I believed that bishops, and especially primates, were guardians of the Faith, and could be trusted to not only uphold it but to also uphold those who held to it. After more than three decades of close observation I cannot deceive myself on those points any more and I ask myself how I could have allowed myself to be so terribly and tragically deceived.
Behold the new Anglican covenant! Just like the old one!
“‘Hitting people over the head with sticks’ was not what the Anglican Communion wanted to do to provinces that violated the Covenant”. Perhaps not, at least for the parts of the communion like TEC that do not intend to follow any covenant, and for whom Aspinall speaks, but it is what Aspinall, not to mention Williams, are happy to help TEC do to the emerging orthodox province in North America. It is with some irony apparently invisible to them that they claim to do so in the interests of koinonia.
It will be interesting to see what Akinola, Orombi and the other orthodox global south primates will say when it is their turn to speak. After all, if there are any heads to be hit with sticks down the road, theirs are far more likely to be struck by the likes of Williams and Aspinall than TEC’s.
The interview also demonstrates that, even if the draft has firm disciplinary language (and one trusts that Dr Radner will, as ever, do his best in trying circumstances) the revisionist primates and bishops will ignore it and wish it away. Since they are the highest authorities in their respective domains, answerable to nobody, it is hard to see how orthodox people in revisionist provinces will benefit. Once again, the structural problems of Anglicanism trump good intentions. Having no magisterium and no central authority will always undermine a theologically diverse and globally dispersed communion.
Well great. Yet another document put together at great expense to no effect, destined for the bottoms of TEC bird cages. Behold the Gelded Age of Anglicanism.
And remember, KJS just said this week that only the province can sign on to any covenant, not individual dioceses.
And that directly contradicts what the ABC said in his letter to +Howe.
Toss this worthless piece of garbage into the trash can. I have said time and time again that if Katharine Jeferts Schori is involved in any way……including Touche-Porter of Mexico, by the way……she will see to it that this “covenant” is so watered down, it will be useless. It is nothing more than whitewash. As for dioceses not being able to sign onto such a covenant, who and what gave her the authority to say that, may I ask?
As for ANY covenant: The Episcopal Church has no intention of ever abiding by anything which does not give them the advantage, and they’ve proven that by Schori’s actions. “From all such heresies, Good Lord deliver us!”
And TEC so embodies a gentle, [i] koinonia [/i] approach to dissent and discipline these days.
If sarcasm and resentment were Christian virtues, this thread would be extraordinarily pious.
Aspinall is living in a fantasy world. Of course, I agree with him that, in that world, “if there is a failure in koinonia the way that such a failure needs to be addressed is through further investment in koinonia, fellowship and relationships.”
Let’s consider, though, that, in this environment, one investment in koinonia that would definitely fit the bill would be for ECUSA to absolutely cease and desist in blessing immorality, until and unless such actions stopped giving wide offense across the Communion. Now, has ECUSA done such a thing? No. “Koinionia” (don’t you wish these guys would stop posturing and speak in everyday language, by the way?) ranks far down the list for ECUSA, certainly well below its libertine project. One might consider, in contrast, the indulgence in years upon years of studies, commissions and reports to merely restate basic Christian moral values – at the conscious expense of throwing away tens of thousands of faithful Anglicans in the meantime – and with pretty certain knowledge it all will be for nothing – a pretty deep investment in Christian fellowship on the part of the rest of the Communion.
The theory of normal family dynamics breaks down when you have a violent, reckless addict in the house. That’s essentially what we have with ECUSA, and the answer is, yes, “sticks” – time out – until it decides to interact on a healthy basis with the rest of the family. If not, go with God, and our sorrow, and we will pray ECUSA cleans up its act before it kills itself, or somebody else.
It really all comes down to what it means when he says:
“is evolving into a document about “koinonia…fellowship…of communion†between churches”.
That can mean 2 things (unfortunately). Reading 1 would be the TEC reading: there will be no discipline. The second would be the traditional Church reading: those who wish to maintain koinonia must maintain the discipline of the Church.
I believe, as I read Dr. Radner’s comment above, that Archbishop Chew, Dr. Radner and others on the CDG see the second meaning as the point of the Covenant. The key will be to spell that out in such clear language that Lambeth bishops are chosen on that basis
RE: “If sarcasm and resentment were Christian virtues, this thread would be extraordinarily pious.”
Thankfully, as I don’t share the same gospel with the author of this statement, I also don’t share the same definitions of “sarcasm,” “resentment,” “Christian,” “virtues,” or “pious.”
So I’m guessing this thread is exactly where it ought to be.
RE: “This is all irresponsible posturing, presenting private and ill-informed wishes as if they were a common and faithful decision, and hoping people believe it as a fact.”
Thank you Ephraim Radner — I suspect you’re right. While I have my doubts about the usefulness of the Covenant, I do recognize public posturing when I see it.
And that’s what he’s doing — attempting to seed the press to report something that he wishes to accomplish.
#15 – John – sarcasm and resentment are legitimate responses by people who are powerless in the face of unjust and hypocritical power.
#6, Senior Priest, I have had the exact same experience as you describe here.
A few years ago I finally woke up and realized that the Anglican faith has been seriously marred by satan’s work. The church was messing with my mind. I was very distraught and confused. I was raised from birth in the Anglican faith. This level of distraught and confusion that I felt drove me to study Scripture for myself to find answers. I did a lot soul of searching and deep praying. God finally opened my eyes and showed me a lot of things in Scripture that I never saw before. I’m thankful with all of my heart that He did that for me. I’ve discovered that a lot of the teachings of Anglicanism are false. I left the church a few years ago, and know I will never go back.
I pray for you; for enlightenment and an ability to escape the self-deception that satan works on the minds of so many.
May God bless you!
I applaud Radner for speaking so boldly here and letting everyone know the false representation being given by the words of Aspinall. I hope he and also Chew will continue to fight for a strong covenant. That’s the only way any sort of TRULY EFFECTIVE covenant will be made.
#20, Senior Priest, I don’t believe that “sarcasm and resentment” are EVER “legitimate responses” by Christians in any situation.
We must learn God’s grace. HE will strike down the wicked, and asks us not to do it. He instead asks us to flee from the wicked lest we be drawn into the fire with them.
I did the same as Mugsie. But I would go back if there were an Anglican church within an hour of where I live. Western Michigan? Not likely. Senior Priest, you are not powerless. You have and should use your power to leave the apostacy of TEC.
John Wilkins, everything TEC has done has had an adverse effect on the rest of us, and that’s why we react the way we do.
“But I would go back if there were an Anglican church within an hour of where I live. Western Michigan? Not likely.”
Depends where you are in Western Michigan, I suppose, but you can usually find an Anglican congregation, or one in formation, within one hour of where you are (several of the priests are personal friends of mine):
http://wmanglican.blogspot.com/
#24, yes, “everything TEC has done has had an adverse effect on the rest of us”. But, however, that does not make it right to use sarcasm and dissention. That is not the fruit of the Holy Spirit. I pray that we ALL remember the fruits of the Holy Spirit:
I don’t believe sarcasm and resentment fit with any of these.
It’s so nice to see the Covenant prospects swirling the bowl!
mugsie, You are quite right, on a level of absolute truth, in all your comments. In mine of #20 I was writing pastorally, as an observation, not as a recommendation. Not only the Episcopal Church, and not only the Anglican Communion, but all churches, all denominations are just as flawed. Please believe me when I say that I have not fled to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism because I know all too well what it’s like on the inside of their organizations (though the new Metropolitan of the OCA is a truly holy man as well as, I am confident, is Pope Benedict XVI, and their churches have many, many holy people). The best any one of us can do is to plow his own field and stand up for what is right. Remember, the Prophets were pretty harsh in their words, as well.
LOL! Ummm… Hopper (#28), were you here before Kendall and his stalwart Elves began to enforce some decorum? Alas, even the best of us finds it hard to endure endless injustice, hypocrisy, and oppression. However it is indeed important to maintain a modicum of civility, I do agree. Anyone wanting to really speak from their heart in a more unbridled fashion might find posting on the esteemed Chris Johnson’s Midwest Conservative Journal a bit more satisfactory.
Certainly, Hopper (28). Civil discourse is further aided by refraining from patronizing or, when speaking from a dominant position, from edifying one’s opponent on manners.
For those complaining of sarcasm on the threads…
What do you make of Paul’s statement in Galatians 5:11-12
“Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”
Is all Scripture inspired? Did the Holy Spirit speak through the Apostle Paul? What of this sarcasm directed against the enemies of the genuine faith?
“Man up” a little, brothers and sisters in Christ. Or in the words of Scripture…gird up your loins like a man and listen!
John Wilkins, you had a valid point to make, but it got lost in your own pious sarcasm. Muggsie and Hopper, you guys make valid points, IMO. While there is often a fine line between clever and mean-spirited, I think we all do well to try and err on the side of charity. Sometimes, it’s hard to read these threads, due to the emotions that seems to reside. I understand that the people who make them often feel betrayed, wounded, angry, etc. I feel the same, most days. I guess that the wounded responses just go with the territory, but I agree with you, and thank you for your gentle reminders.
Civil discourse like, “you brood of vipers”, “get behind me, Satan”?
Ephraim+’s zinger (#3) is spreading into cyberspace.
Maybe what is sorely needed is some figurative sticks upside some “heads” of wayward and rebellious provinces – a few come readily to mind. Aspinall, Your Grace, David had a few choice words for you:
John Wilkins, is it a Christian virtue to invite people to visit and presumably join your church who cohabitate, with no mention made of this being unequivocally the sin of fornication? And I mean your congregation of which you personally are the rector. You may deny it, and you may change your church’s web site before anyone looks you up and goes to where it is hidden a link or two into the home page, but Google has it cached since I went to it from when your church was featured a few months ago for removing many rows of pews from the back so the sanctuary didn’t seem so empty.
So, a yes or no answer would be much appreciated to this non-rhetorical and non-sarcastic question: Is it a Christian virtue to fornicate (albeit monagamously) by cohabitation? Should such a couple expect to continue to attend your church with no amendment of life, no freedom from slavery to sin in the sheer joy of salvation unearned and unearnable and the infilling of the Holy Spirit? Even if you choose not to answer here, any “teacher in Israel, who is held to a stricter judgment” should consider soberly and with fear whether he is leading his flock to safety or to slaughter.
Milton, this was the rationale that made it necessary for my wife and me to leave TEC. I could not in good conscience be amember of a church I was not willing to invite a friend to attend. And how can anyone raise a child in such a church? This is why some of our friends who had children left.
RE # 15
JW,
[blockquote] If sarcasm and resentment were Christian virtues, this thread would be extraordinarily pious. [/blockquote]
You need to read the Fathers. Some of them raised satire, sarcasm and polemics to an art form.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
#35, CharlesB, these are some of the reasons I left too. I heard grossly false teaching coming from the pulpit. It caused me to become both confused and distraught.
I also saw many people in church (homosexuals, cross dressers, cohabitants, etc., etc.) Not only was I disgusted with what I saw, but I was concerned about how this would affect my son who was 11 at the time; a very difficult and impressionable age to begin with.
I did a lot of soul searching and began studying the Bible for myself. I came to a very certain conclusion that I had to leave Anglicanism I came to a certain understanding that a lot of what I was taught was just plain false. I could not even REMOTELY be involved in a church of such heresy which is also led by a presiding bishop who is also a heretic (she certainly is no Christian based on her own personal words said in public).
I spoke with my son about my concerns and my decision to leave the church. I told him we both had to go elsewhere. He was in agreement. He was actually very disturbed by the homosexual blessings, and the cross dressing he witnessed too. He opened up and shared it all with me. I believe our move from all Anglicanism has saved both myself and my son from great harm. I only pray that God believes so too. One cannot possibly be involved in an apostate church and still remain true to the faith. Just by taking meals with those apostates each Sunday is to defile the Lord’s Supper in my opinion.
Someone above mentioned that the apostles used “harsh” words. I would consider a more appropriate description to be “firm” words, or “warning” words to abide by the teaching they were given by the apostles themselves.
Yes, JESUS did indeed use “harsh” words to the Pharisees. He is our Chief Priest and has power above all things and all people. He knew their hearts were far from him and hypocritical. His words were quite warranted under the circumstances. These Pharisees tried to deceive the people, drown them in false “rules”, and conspired to kill Jesus because he was a threat to their “power”. I believe that is about as low as you can get, so I believe Jesus was quite justified in calling them “vipers”, etc. However, we were not given commands to use such words, or such sentiments. We were commanded to learn and to use God’s grace with every fellow man. If a man chooses not to follow God’s Word, then “shake the dust off your sandals” and move on. In other words, leave the church which has chosen the devil as its master and let God do the judging.
That is what I did.
Charles i am confused, i don’t really know what milton is talking about but am i correct in assuming that you don’t think a church should preach against sin? if so, then i have to disagree, too many churches avoid even the mention of sin for fear of losing people when it is exactly that which we really need. perhaps it could be preached in a less condemning tone but the message should not be watered down imho.
Magnolia, oh, dear. You can’t be serious? TEC condones and encourages sinful behaviors, with glee. I’m not going to take the time to quote chapter and verse, but IMHO they are the epitome of what is wrong in the mainline politically correct churches. Their attitude in Western Michigan–and I heard this said–is, “This is the way it is going to be. Make your choice: get over it, get counseling, or get out.” I chose number three.
magnolia, read CharlesB’s comment again. He said that if he could not invite a friend to that church in good conscience nor in good conscience raise a child in it, then he also could not justify attending it any longer himself, one of the reasons being that the church stopped preaching on sin long ago. Except for the sins of “homophobia” or not supporting the UN MDGs. What’s that? The Executive Council of TEC struck the 0.7% budget line item for 2009? Oh…, never mind. Something about fiduciary duty.
You can find out what I am talking about by doing a search on Google, perhaps with the terms “church removes pews”. You will find on at least one of the hits a linkto the church’s web site and also the TitusOneNine post on it. This is the church of which John Wilkins (his blog name, not his actual name) is the rector.
Yes, #38, magnolia, churches should preach both what sin is, and how to overcome it. The church should be the “support” in overcoming sin. True understanding of Scriptures, and not men’s twisted perversions of it should be taught in all churches.
Numbers in attendance is such a shallow reason for preaching about what people want to hear. Also falling into secular practices, types of services, music, etc. in churches are just as shallow. Those that will attend due these efforts are not interested in learning the TRUE faith given by God through the Holy Spirit. These folks are only interested in joining social clubs. They can find those anywhere, so why should we care about them?
I believe it would be much better if a congregation has to remain small, and have to congregate in humble settings while upholding the TRUE faith of God, rather than all the nuances and “nonsense” the churches are putting forth today.
TEC has gone far beyond even nonsense. They are teaching approval of blatant sinful ways and aren’t the least bit concerned about it. The leadership (right up to the ABC) have no interest in reforming the church and returning it to true faith. They are only interested in satisfying their own physical and emotional desires, and avoiding conflict (especially the ABC on the conflict issue).
This is an extraordinary turn of events. If I am correct, did not Rowan Williams himself select Phil Aspinall to be the spokesperson for the primates? Presumably Williams had his reasons for this selection. Then we hear normally mild-mannered Ephraim Radner – one of the most thoughtful, calm, and deliberate-in-his-words commentators – say of Aspinall’s comments that they are “all irresponsible posturing, presenting private and ill-informed wishes as if they were a common and faithful decision, and hoping people believe it as a fact.” I think that we can all join Bugs Bunny and ask “What’s up, Doc?” Something here isn’t smelling right.
Does anyone recall the much vaunted 2020 Visioning Process in TEC several years ago? The vision was to double church attendance by 2020, and the initial thinkers behind that initiative were evangelicals and their proposal was very evangelistically oriented (e.g. as in evangelism, not politically evangelical). But the powers-that-be in TEC’s Executive Council found the 2020 vision to be very threatening, because, as smart liberals know, church growth threatens the liberal stranglehold on TEC. And so TEC’s Executive Council retained the name of 2020, but completely disemboweled it, and created a new non-threatening, non-evangelistic program in its place that died a quiet death.
The idea of an Anglican Covenant was initially proposed as part of Rowan Williams’ Windsor Process which was designed to avoid future Communion-threatening conflicts. It was clear to everyone involved, that the sine qua non purpose of a Covenant was to create boundaries. A Covenant without boundaries would be less then useless.
Yet, this is exactly what Aspinall seems to be pushing. Is Rowan Williams behind this attempt to disembowel the Covenant process? It is my belief that if the Covenant becomes a toothless “feel-good” list of Anglican platitudes, then the Communion will fracture even further. I wonder if Rowan Williams realizes this, and if so, does he care, and if so does he has the leadership backbone to do something about it? I suspect the answers are yes, yes, and no.
And so, I suspect that Rowan Williams will continue the dithering, and in response, the Global South will increasingly support the ACNA, KJS will ramp up her persecution of the orthodox in TEC (with the Communion Partners next in the target sights). The Anglican Communion will continue its devolution into becoming a Federation of Churches formally united with the See of Canterbury, but realistically (at least) two (and maybe more) estranged alliances of Provinces. The liberal alliance will dominate the AC Instruments of Unity for the time being (until their financial dominance wears out), while the conservative alliance will develop into a functioning communion-within-the-Federation. I further predict that history will not remember Rowan Williams particularly well.
The mention of 2020 recalls one of my favorite Episcopal evangelism jokes:
In the Episcopal Church, the 90’s were the Decade of Evangelism.
Half the church left.
Many became Baptists.
So I guess it worked!
I suppose John Wilkins doesn’t think that is funny.
#34 – Milton – uh – yes, I have invited people who cohabitate to church. I don’t bless them. They don’t ask for my approval. They come to experience the love of God. Those who have cohabitated and joined eventually got married.
I do invite sinners into my church. And I trust that the word of God will transform them. I did it without wagging my fingers at them. I preach and expound the scripture. But most of the people who I’ve invited on that web page (which I changed recently because it was too long), because they aren’t going to any churches at all.
#24 – I would have thought that the love of God would have allowed some distance and recognition that it is all truly in God’s hands. Is it not? Let God do the condemning. There is no need for resentment. It was Judas, after all, who most resented Jesus’ power.
#42 jamesw
Yes Rowan Williams did select AB Aspinall and presumably for a reason, to give the party line.
Thinking back, I do remember conservatives pinging off the wall before the Communique at the Dar Primates Meeting. Much of that can be traced back to the information being ‘reported’ by AB Aspinall. Turned out when the Communique was issued that it was all tosh.
Fortunately Aspinall is not the only source of information and I am disinclined to believe anything reported by him, except as an indication of what Rowan Williams and others would like to be the case. Still a total failure to deal sensibly with the Gafcon elephant in the room.
There is clearly a great deal of jockeying going on. Pull up a chair and open the popcorn.
#44 That is reassuring to hear. If you do preach and truly expound the scripture so that both our utter incapacity to meet the divine standard on our own (“Be ye holy, for your Father in heaven is holy”, “‘Then who can be saved?’ ‘With man it is impossible; but with God all things are possible.'”, Romans Ch. 7) and that the shed blood of Jesus washes away all our sins and the grace and power of the Holy Spirit are sufficient to resist and avoid sin and that God is faithful to forgive confessed and repented sin, then you will indeed have many crowns to lay at the feet of Jesus in the last day and many brothers and sisters to know forever in heaven, and my hat is off to you.
Absolutely sinners (like myself) are to be invited into church, as Jesus invited all (“Whoever is thirsty, let him come and drink of Me.”), and those who came and stayed were never the same again. My prayers go with you for God to send many, many into your church who will be crossed over from death to real life by the Holy Spirit. May it be that you have to dust off and re-install dozens of pews!
Are we to take it that after 5 years Dr Williams has managed to come up with “bonds of mutual affection”?
LOL
[i] “Hitting people over the head with sticks†was not what the Anglican Communion wanted to do to [/i] —Abp. Aspinall
Heavens no! We leave that to KJS, her Beers, and their fellow thugs.
Milton:
In other words, “the Gospel — If you preach it, they will come!”
🙂
#15 John Wilkins,
“If sarcasm and resentment were Christian virtues, this thread would be extraordinarily pious.”
Couldn’t your statement itself be seen as sarcastic?
S.F. and T19 have excellent resident editors.