Churches which violate the boundaries of Anglican faith and order would be subject to a disciplinary process overseen by the joint standing committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, the third draft of the Anglican Covenant has proposed.
Scofflaws could be adjudged to be acting in a manner “incompatible with the Covenant” and subject to possible suspension from participation in international Anglican forums, the documents said. However, discipline would not be automatic, and would be exercised by the individual provinces and the communion; for “it shall be for each Church and each Instrument to determine its own response to such recommendations” for discipline, the proposed Covenant stated.
This is from the other discussion of the Covenant which I never got answered:
—
Tobias Heller, at Jim Naughton’s site, raises an objection for the orthodox:
[blockquote]
Given that one of the things apparently covenanted to is respect for the governance of existing Churches that are already part of the Anglican Communion, and a commitment to remain in communion with them, how could ACNA or any other dissident diocese or province (or Church, e.g., Nigeria) sign on?[/blockquote]
Can the provinces who, to all intents and purposes have broken communion with the TEClub, sign on to the Covenant? Do the provinces of Nigeria and Uganda (et cetera) have to accept the TEClub heresies?
One of my fears is that with each successive draft, is that “cross border” interventions were moved up to parity with homosexual bishops and SSU blessings. If Nigeria, say, supports the ACNA, would that be grounds for “discipline.” Can Ms Schori and her minions use this to sanction Nigeria?
Robroy: You raise an interesting question. A few thoughts in response.
1. Actually, the Covenant only requires in 3.2.2 to “respect the constitutional autonomy of all the Churches of the Anglican Communion”. The “constitutional autonomy” of TEC can be respected while still judging TEC to be heretical, right? By way of analogy, I can say that I “respect the autonomy” of Ann Holmes Redding to decided for herself which religion(s) she wishes to adhere to, but that doesn’t say anything about whether I think she is fit to be an Anglican priest. So I see no barrier to the GAFCON provinces from signing on, and still judging TEC to be heretical.
2. The issue of cross-border “interventions” would be a real issue. But why would TEC ever wish to try to get Nigeria (or anyone else) sanctioned under the Covenant? To do so would be to set a precedent for sanctioning Provinces under the Covenant, which is the very thing TEC does NOT want! So, no, I don’t see TEC requesting sanctions against anybody, unless they have first been subject to potential sanctions.
3. The big test will be in how this Covenant would affect the AC’s top leadership. Will it make them more or less likely to discipline TEC (because that is likely where the next challenge will come from even if TEC was given a pass on sexuality). My own thoughts on this Covenant is that it simply will take another bold Province to do something similar to what TEC did in 2003, coupled with the same hand-wringing passivity in response exercised by the AC’s top leader, and we will have exactly the same situation we currently have in the future. We’ll simply have one more vague structure available for use, and a hand-wringing ABC supposedly unable to act because he wants to “keep everyone at the table”.
James, the TEClub won’t be doing it first. Rather, Brazil will sign onto the covenant and call for Southern Cone to be sanctioned. When that goes through, [i]then[/i] the TEClub (or perhaps Canada) will sign on and push for Nigeria to be sanctioned, etc.
I see plenty of “moderate” fence sitter who would like to exclude the “troublesome” Nigeria and Uganda from the Communion.
A mended net this ain’t nor will allow to be. What a disappointment! What a waste of resources. It is a Teccite Rowan Williams farce…Windsor II ( I’d say son of windsor but that would be patriarchal, or daughter of windsor but that would be sexist, and I doubt hemaphrodite of windsor’s progeny would catch on, but you get the idea).
RobRoy, I believe the answer to your question is “whatever Rowan Williams decides.”
And that, as they say, is that.
I suspect we will have the institutionalist provinces scrabbling to pile on a Covenant approval, understandably, desperate to salvage [i]something[/i].
And my own special theory is that we’ll have a Mexican standoff with the left and the right.
Were I one of the 8-9 provinces on the right, I simply wouldn’t be able to validate or promote signing a Covenant without dealing with the current issues that are confronting us. And since, manifestly and openly, the Covenant is clearly not designed to deal with those current issues, I wouldn’t be able to advocate signing on to it. No way would I sign any kind of document binding me to anything at all, given the current state of the Communion. Furthermore, of course, I’d need to wait until TEC made itself quite clear that it was not going to join, before I could justify even considering joining as a traditional Province.
Were I TEC — I’d sign it in a heartbeat.
And there we’d be. The institutional provinces [and I mean no slight by that word, I just don’t know what other word to call them other than “moderate”] could end up in a Communion with Wales, TECUSA, Canada, et al. Enjoy!
On the other hand, it could well be that the “moderate/institutional” provinces — and I estimate about 15 to 16 — could end up being in a nice tidy Communion together, sans either left or right. How peaceful that could be!
Not that that would really affect anything. Since there are no consequences in the Covenant — as was predicted all along — Nigeria/Kenya/et al need to do is sit back and watch.
And that is all TECUSA need do as well.
That right there will account for a good 10 more years — by which point we’ll have a new ABC, which hits my own estimate of what it will take to break the standoff. There will be no real progress — if any — until we have a new ABC. That’s not to blame the current ABC for this mess at all. But that’s my estimation of just now how impossibly broken it is. Shattered.
The key, then, for those conservatives still in TECUSA is to recognize just how alone and on our own we are. That’s been the hard dose of reality that I’ve wished so so badly that traditional Episcopalians would drink up, and drink it up quick. Until you surrender the idea of the “outside something or other” dealing with our problems, we’ll keep on behaving in a short-sighted and non-strategic way.
robroy: No, I don’t think that any TEC allies will call for sanctions under the Covenant. TEC will push for critical rhetoric but no action. Precedent is set for sanctioning whether TEC pushes it or one of its proxy Provinces.
TEC’s long-term response to this Covenant will be to keep on doing what they want to do, but to avoid any sanction. Doing so will require that they not create any precedent in favor of sanctioning. Their response to the ACNA will be to seek to prevent them from being officially accepted, while still claiming that they ARE still official Anglicans.
Sarah says: “The key, then, for those conservatives still in TECUSA is to recognize just how alone and on our own we are. That’s been the hard dose of reality that I’ve wished so so badly that traditional Episcopalians would drink up, and drink it up quick. Until you surrender the idea of the “outside something or other†dealing with our problems, we’ll keep on behaving in a short-sighted and non-strategic way.”
I realized this about two years ago. The Covenant is a waste of time. And the institutional AC is a waste of time. Chart your own course as best you can.
I posit that this is TEC’s poison pill. They’ve never really cared much for the idea of an Anglican Covenant which was all about trying to draw TEC and ACoC back into order, so they’ve fired back with their own twist.
TEC likes to point to the people, churches, and dioceses that are leaving as schismatic, but their actions in the communion and church catholic show their hypocracy. It’s an issue (the theology and the increasinly impared relationship within the Anglican Communion) that really begs to be raised in the civil courts in America but of course can’t, letting TEC hid behind the Constitution as it uses civil law to attack critics. The story is dreadfully thick with irony.
I hate to spoil all the fun speculating, but I think you’re all wasting your time — there will never be an Anglican Covenant. This draft is D.O.A. it is destined someday be little more than in a footnote on failed strategies to deal with the crisis in the Communion – nothing more.
If there’s one thing the leaders of TEC and the Global South agree upon at this point it’s that the Covenant idea is a dead end. To believe in the Covenant at this point is to believe that two radically and profoundly different theologies can be held together in tension by a deeper commitment to the Communion. The assumption is false and because it is false the entire project is now widely seen, on both sides of the divide, as a failed one.
[blockquote]By vesting provinces with the ultimate authority in determining the meaning of the Covenant, the document effectively concedes that the national churches, not dioceses, are the primary ecclesial units of the Anglican Communion. Adoption of the Covenant is also vested with provinces and not individual dioceses:[/blockquote]
Well, if this is the case then the CP Bishops have a problem don’t they? Wasn’t the ace in the hole the hoped for basic unit being the Diocese? “Matrix III” was quite a disappointment too.
James, I am with Sarah. I don’t think the TEClubbers should be worried about consequences from this Covenant. We have seen that they can manipulate the Joint Standing Committee all too easily which is all that needs to happen for them to get a free ride. But it seems that they could use it to box out Nigeria, Uganda, etc. Then we won’t have cross border interventions on parity with SSUB’s and homosexual bishops. Cross border interventions will be grounds for expulsion.
[11] “Cross border interventions will be grounds for expulsion.”
I’m not sure that [i]that[/i] is the worst possible outcome. I just hope that we in GAFCON draw nearer to the other catholic bodies.
RE: “But it seems that they could use it to box out Nigeria, Uganda, etc.”
Again — I honestly don’t know that Nigeria, et al will need to be “boxed out.”
#11. robroy,
[blockquote]Then we won’t have cross border interventions on parity with SSUB’s and homosexual bishops. Cross border interventions will be grounds for expulsion.[/blockquote]The Windsor Continuation Group Report said the following:[blockquote]49. Although breaches of the three moratoria may not have moral or doctrinal equivalence, as acknowledged by the Primates at Dar es Salaam , yet the WCG agrees with the assessment of TWR that breaches of the moratoria are equal threats to our life in Communion, and that therefore there must be seen to be an equal and commensurate response in addressing breaches of all three moratoria.[/blockquote] This is a grave error to say that an issue that is a larger doctrinal and moral threat is not any larger a threat to the communion than border crossing. At this point the communion has decided that unity is the primary purpose of the covenant. With the new covenant we have even dismissed the WCG statement that “there must be seen to be an equal and commensurate response in addressing breaches of all three moratoria” So we go from “SSUB’s and homosexual bishops” being a larger moral and doctrinal issue but no greater a threat to the life of the communion than border crossings to a point that border crossings are now a bigger threat to the communion in the latest draft of the covenant. How did we get here?
14. “How did we get here”
The slow careful manipulative scheming of the Welsh boyos.
I do agree that it may be quite possible for reappraisers to get all that they want without expelling the GAFCON/FCA provinces.
I sometimes also need to remind myself that (i) communion is broken among a number of provinces within the AC; (ii) the instruments are collectively unable (unwilling?) to preserve or protect such communion; (iii) the instruments are collectively unable (unwilling?) to preserve or protect a common, Christian faith. Just what exactly is the AC today? It is an historic association of provinces, some of which are in communion and some are not. It harbors multiple faiths.
Some may enjoy the history, the opportunities for service, the pageantry (no offense PM), colorful phot ops, credibility, etc., – but at some point – if that is all there is, then I must admit to myself that the AC has become the organizational equivalent of an ornate club.
And to some, that apparently is quite sufficient.
: – |
#15. PG,
OK P.G. “Welsh boyos”. Google didn’t help me with this. Could you translate from English to American? Is this a reference to the ABC?
‘boyo’ [South Welsh] – boy/man [Eng UK]
USAGE: as in ‘Look you, boyos’ [SW] – ‘Good day, chaps’ [Eng UK] – ‘Wassup, man’ [Eng US]