My first cheer then is for the doctrinal substance of the Cambridge Ridley Draft. It is orthodox and consistent in the main with the “providential ordering of Anglican history and mission.” While I might wish to express the essence of Anglican Christianity somewhat differently, I do not find myself wincing at glaring deviations from the faith once for all delivered to the saints such as one finds routinely in the speeches and writings emanating from The Episcopal Church. My second “50/50” cheer is for setting forth constitutional principles that might lead to the ultimate reform of the Communion and discipline of those who have thrown it into confusion. Whether the Covenant, as currently proposed, will lead to such a reform is contingent on many twists and turns of ecclesiastical politics, including the response of the GAFCON churches and the willingness of the Instruments, especially the Archbishop of Canterbury, to allow certain churches to self-select themselves out of the Covenant and ultimately the Communion. For let it be clearly stated, there is no future for a vibrant and coherent Anglican and Christian body that includes The Episcopal Church (TEC) and Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) as they now exist.
Stephen Noll: The Ridley Cambridge Covenant Draft–An Appreciation
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Anglican Covenant
This is a fascinating review by Stephen Noll. The sentence that will get picked up most is that one about there is no vibrant future for the Communion if it includes TEC. It is the logical and clear conclusion to follow the oft spoken statement that there are now two religions in TEC–one that worships Jesus as the crucified and risen God, through whom all are saved by faith; and one that worships the Christ in each and every person, through whom we save the world. The statement itself highlights what is at stake in the whole of the Covenant.
There are some who appear to want a Covenant that helps us all to get along without any one feeling they are the losers. There are others who appear willing to say that the only way we can all hold our heads up high is if we allow the possibility that some may walk apart–although we hope it does not come to that. There have been others who are willing to say the Covenant should not only allow some to walk apart but should encourage a moment of decision. A few have hoped that the Covenant would specifically excommunicate one group or another.
With that comment, the framework is set for engaging Noll’s Appreciation. Personally, I accept that framework and had been previously disappointed with this RCD. Noll has caused me to take a much more hopeful second look. He has demonstrated that there is reason to believe that this Covenant does realistically address the current situation of the Communion and frames a healthy, constructive response.
[blockquote]Again, I would wish to appreciate the contribution of the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner, who has devoted much effort (and many words!) in promoting the Covenant as a vehicle of the Spirit and an authentic theological contribution to the future of Anglicanism and the wider ecumenical hope.[/blockquote]
This is the money quote for me since my continuing prayer would be that two of the best minds in the Anglican Communion would be in one accord.
Noll’s argument here is very persuasive. As I understand it, Noll is suggesting that GAFCON has nothing to lose by jumping on the Covenant-train early. In contrast, by not doing so, they risk seizing defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Most conservatives have criticized the Covenant for not possessing sufficient disciplinary procedures, and I agreed. Noll, however, is suggesting that things will never get that far anyway, and that it is entirely unrealistic to suppose that we’d ever get a Covenant that included such disciplinary provisions. So Noll makes the case the the gate keeping part of the Covenant is not the disciplinary provisions, but rather the entering into the Covenant in the first place.
So, Noll would suggest that by the GAFCON provinces signing on to the Covenant, the potential scenarios are:
Best case for GAFCON: conservative and moderate sign on to Covenant, TEC doesn’t and self-selects out.
Worse case for GAFCON: Covenant collapses due to TEC bad faith, moderate Provinces get angry and side with GAFCON.
By GAFCON provinces not signing on to the Covenant, Noll suggests the potential scenarios might be:
Best case for GAFCON: nobody signs on to the Covenant, and no change in the situation.
Worst case for GAFCON: TEC and moderate provinces sign on to Covenant, and TEC then takes control of the Communion.
Regardless of what TEC does, GAFCON comes out better for signing on to the Covenant.
I would think that there are even more additional benefits for them to do so. My guess is that TEC’s hope is that the GAFCON provinces will shoot down the Covenant, so that it gets dropped. That would eliminate the need for TEC to make a decision (and this would seem to go well with the PB’s attempts to delay consideration of the Covenant as long as possible), yet TEC could not be blamed for killing the Covenant. The very WORST thing for 815/TEC is for the GAFCON provinces and the ACNA to enthusiastically sign on to the Covenant. This will bring enormous pressure on TEC to also sign on to the Covenant, which will have the effect of placing great strain on the relationship between the institutional liberals and the “go it alone” liberals. I think that it would be very difficult for TEC to push full ahead with its sexuality agenda while still claiming to consider the Covenant in good faith. Thus, I think that the scenario might emerge much more quickly by which 815/TEC decides firmly AGAINST the Covenant.
Other case: TEC (and ACoC and Brazil and Mexico, etc.) sign on and GAFCon-ners sign on. The JSC, with Ms Schori a member, decides that GAFCon recognition of ACNA and not TEClub violates the Covenant, which it certainly seems to do. But they decide that repealing B033 doesn’t.
Robroy: I believe that your scenario would come under this:
“Worse case for GAFCON: Covenant collapses due to TEC bad faith, moderate Provinces get angry and side with GAFCON. “
When will a final covenant come out?
#6. WestJ,
I think if the ACC accepts the Covenant then that is what will be voted on but I am open to correction on this.
#6, Possibly when Tartarus is Coccytus.
#8.dwstroudmd,
[blockquote]Possibly when Tartarus is Coccytus.[/blockquote]
That is a statement of myth not faith. Wink
A very interesting thread is up over at Covenant (link is http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/forums/viewthread/505/) in which liberal commentators have leaked and are upset by a pending ACI/Communion Partners paper on who can accept the proposed covenant. The palpable anger that comes through from some leading liberal commentators together with the PB’s grander strategy behind her litigation campaign, makes it highly probable that TEC has no intention whatsoever to sign on to the Covenant, and that they will seek to depose and remove any bishop or diocesan standing committee that tries to sign on. I think that the evidence is building up in favor of Noll’s argument, and his best case scenario for GAFCON signing on to the Covenant is the most probable one.