Thus the proposed Covenant’s pedigree is in fact an attempt in our days to begin to answer the questions posed by the Virginia Report. The mostly tacit koinonia that had kept the Communion together had begun to crumble, due to the centrifugal forces that began pulling at the Communion since the 1960s (remembering that the Communion doubled in size since “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence” in 1963). These have only gotten stronger with the passage of time. It is worth noting that the Covenant does not try to define how the four Instruments should interact. It only pushes back to them a perceived threat to the integrity of the Covenant, not the Communion, from among the signatory churches.
A classic Anglican formulary, to which all Anglicans pay homage, is the Sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles, that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, though it does not spell out what those necessary things are. Similarly, this Covenant tries to define a “containment area” in which decisions on the Virginia questions can be made, without spelling out the particulars. Having made this Covenant, in other words, Anglicans could then work toward defining structures and procedures for a global communion of churches.
Two more undiscussed aspects are the blessing of same-sex unions and ordination of people in them, and the incursions by other provinces into The Episcopal Church. Furthermore, a new group has come into being, the Anglican Church of North America, competing with The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. In March 2009, the Church of Nigeria recognized it, and a few days ago a group of Primates (the “Global Anglican Future Conference Primates”) meeting in London did so as well.[5] The ACNA claims to unite under one jurisdiction a disparate cluster of churches, missions of other provinces, and dioceses calling themselves Anglican.
[blockquote]the House of Deputies become less of a debating club and more responsive to the support of the several dioceses in their mission and ministry. The House of Bishops needs to reclaim its teaching ministry, and, as Episcopal bishops are subject to the House and its Rules of Order, to expect more discipline from its members. And the shape, role and powers of the office of Presiding Bishop should be re-examined.[/blockquote] There you have it. That should do it. Just do these things and TEC will be fit as a fiddle….NOT. This Bishop needs to come back to North America and go on a listening tour.
Stephen Noll has written a perceptive appreciation of the Ridley Cambridge draft. It is worth reading in full [url=http://www.stephenswitness.com/2009/04/ridley-cambridge-draft-appreciation.html]here[/url]. Many thanks, Stephen.
He states:
[blockquote]It is my conclusion that the GAFCON churches should move to the front of the queue and sign on to the Covenant. [/blockquote]
Bishop Whalon makes this observation: “The First Council of Nicaea, faced with the Novatian controversy (a somewhat similar situation, actually), ruled that there can only be one bishop for one diocese. Anglicans have always followed this rule, for good reason.”
I find it rather ironic that Bishop Whalon is the Bishop in Charge of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe (a geographical jurisdiction that also has a CofE bishop or bishops assigned) can make this claim with a straight face.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I think this is Whalon’s attempt to warn TEC that if they don’t cross their fingers and sign the covenant, and the ACNA does, their status in the communion may decrease. I see this as the TEC institutionalist response to the covenant. I’m not sure it will fly with the more honest revisionists. Of course, it is also hard to give it much credit, what with coming from a border-crossing bishop (As pointed out by #3; before somebody posts it, yes, the TEC bishop of Europe has written an explanation for why his situation is different. I will save you the time of reading it. It is okay to cross borders when TEC likes it, and not okay when TEC doesn’t.)
The House of Bishops ARE exercising a teaching ministry. One of relativism, sycretism, and revisionism. And when the crowds grow restless they distract us by the mantra: “Be in Mission.” “Be in Mission”. “Be in Mission”. In other words. “just DO the works and pay the bills and leave the meanings up to us”.