Archbishop Drexel Gomez, chair of the Covenant Design Group (CDG), Monday urged delegates of the 14th Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) to send out “for consideration and adoption” the third and final draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant to the member churches of the Anglican Communion, saying “what is decided here is likely to make or break the communion.”
Archbishop Gomez, who recently retired as primate of the Church of the Province of the West Indies, warned that while at least three provinces have questioned whether there was a need for a common covenant among Anglican churches worldwide, “I have to say to you in all seriousness, the communion is close to the point of breaking up.” He did not identify which provinces are cold to the idea of a covenant, which was recommended by the Lambeth Commission on Communion as a way to address deep fissures among Anglican churches worldwide triggered by the issue of homosexuality.
Archbishop Gomez added: “If we are not able to commit ourselves to this sort of being a communion, the break up of its life is staring us in the face. Either we are a family, which means that each member of the family has care for and respect for the other members of the family, or we will have to learn to go our separate ways. The question is, do we wish to remain a communion?”
The Anglican Communion is already a “family”, albeit an extraordinarily dysfunctional one.
For the latest manifestation of the family dysfunction, read Anglican Consultative Council Refuses to Seat Ugandan Delegate on this blog.
[blockquote]”The question is, do we wish to remain a communion?”[/blockquote]
With respect, I am afraid that I disagree. I would phrase the question as a [i]potential return[/i] to a communion. First, communion is already broken among a number of provinces within the AC, the instruments are collectively unable (unwilling?) to preserve or protect such communion, and the instruments are collectively unable (unwilling?) to preserve or protect a common, Christian faith. The AC is currently a federation of provinces, some of which are in communion and some are not. It harbors multiple faiths. Membership says little about communion status among provinces, or operating faith. Second, I would not suggest at this point that the mere adoption of the covenant will be effective in restoring communion – it might be completely ineffective.
When I hear anyone saying the Church MUST do something NOW to avoid some disaster – I suspect a hustle!
With the outlandish behavior of the JSC (first the wretched post Sept HOB statement, now the non-seating of the Ugandan representative), one has to say, who wants a Covenant with them as the ultimate arbiters?
[blockquote]Another ACC delegate asked what would happen to member churches who choose not to sign on to the covenant. Bishop Gregory Cameron, deputy secretary general of the Anglican Communion, said the Covenant Design Group had “wrestled hard†on this matter but felt that “we’re still entering a period of transition.†He said that it remained to be seen how many would adopt it. He said “at the moment, there is no linkage†between adoption of the covenant and participating in the life and activities of the communion. He said that if 15 or 20 member churches approve the covenant “it might move quite quickly and give it more gravity…â€
Bishop Cameron’s statement was in contrast to a statement made earlier at a press briefing by Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, who said that the membership and participation in the communion of provinces which decided to opt out of the covenant would not be altered.[/blockquote]
If there is indeed no “linkage”, then please would someone explain the point of it all …?! For it would appear that: To opt or not to opt, is no longer the question … Folks; this is a sad day indeed …
#4. Martin Reynolds,
[blockquote]When I hear anyone saying the Church MUST do something NOW to avoid some disaster – I suspect a hustle![/blockquote]
When I hear Archbishop Drexel Gomez say it, I pay attention. I only wish the ABC had the same sense of urgency. I believe that TEC has been ambivalent at best about a Covenant and at this point frankly, could care less if it gets out for approval now or ever. People have been looking at GenCon09 as a defining moment but it could happen here at the ACC. It the Covenant is sent back for another revision and there is no discussion of ACNA, it could be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Quite – let’s put off taking any decisions about same sex blessings until such time as we can agree on a Covenant.
I truly hope that the Communion moves on without TEC.
The attitude usually adjusts quicker when one is on the outside looking in. Maybe some time in Nod will do North America some good.
RE: “Quite – let’s put off taking any decisions about same sex blessings until such time as we can agree on a Covenant.”
Lol.
Driver8 . . . you are being [i]divisive[/i].
This is just plumb dumb……. important to sign covenant, but of course not necessarily in any hurry… Seems 5 years would be about right for it to mold into shreds..
Are these people really this naive, or just putting on a show?
Grandmother in SC..
We cannot possibly vote on the Covenant until the House of Deputies approves the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Let’s not be too hasty with these important matters.
I was thinking about Matt. Ch. 10 and family members being set against each other, but that seems too depressing. What suddenly hit me is that Rowan’s Anglican Communion is like the Cheshire cat. Pretty soon the only thing left will be a wan smile on the good archbishop’s face. So sad, but so predictable.
As much as I respect and even admire +Drexel Gomez, I find his appeal for this Covenant to be taken with great seriousness and approved to be a classic case of “too little, too late.” I heartily agree with tired (#3) and robroy (#5) above. The AC is not facing the prospect of breaking up; it’s already breeaking up. It’s not a matter of deciding to “remain” in communion, but of choosing to restore a broken communion.
Finally, I think the good bishop who has nobly led the Covenant process all along, is far too optimistic about the practical value of any such document, for that will inevitably depend on the will to enforce its provisions. And so the real question naturally is, WHO gets to decide when and how that’s done? Who has the will and power to enforce the Covenant and make it’s provisions stick?
That is, when the chair of the CDG acknowledges frankly that there is “no appetite” for an centralized authority that could enforce the Covenant, I think the honorable +Gomez has conceded a point that shouldn’t be conceded. As I keep saying at every opportunity, I think there is a manifest need for new centralized authorities to arise that can replace the current ineffectual Instruments of Unity that are sadly proving to be in actuality Instruments of Disunity. And as I keep saying, we clearly need the equivalent of an Anglican Supreme Court. And yes, that means one with binding, jurisdictional powers over the provinces, and not another international body with a merely advisory role.
And if TEC and the ACoC don’t like it? Or Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, etc.? Well, just ram it down their throats. In the name of Jesus.
David Handy+
#14. NRA,
[blockquote]As much as I respect and even admire +Drexel Gomez, I find his appeal for this Covenant to be taken with great seriousness and approved to be a classic case of “too little, too late.[/blockquote]
Shouldn’t there be a commensurate degree of concern from the ABC? Why does he seem to be continually detached from the seriousness of the situation and the need for some kind of action?
Deacon Dale (#15),
If I understand you correctly, you are observing that ++Rowan Williams ought to be even more concerned than +Drexel Gomez is about the imminent breakup of the AC (which has already begun). And yet. as you rightly note, Cantaur remains strangely silent about his real hopes, fears, and expectations. In some ways, he remains very much the academic professor at heart, who habitually maintains the sort of detachment academic fosters in order to be objective as an analyst.
Or perhaps you meant that the ABoC ought to be even more concerned than you and I are about the worrisome possibility (or probability, I’d say) that the whole Covenant process is a sad case of doing “too little, too late” to save the AC from a complete institutional meltdown.
Either way, I’d agree.
But ironically, I expect more from Drexel Gomez than I do from Rowan Williams because +Gomez is passionately opposed to the whole unbiblical pro-gay agenda, whereas ++Williams, alas, continues unrepentantly to quietly favor it. But I think both men are honorable Christians that are caught in a terrible dilemma, a sort of catch-22 situation, where their sincere and legitimate concern for trying to preserve the institution of the AC (as we have known it, a key proviso), gets in the way of acting wholeheartedly in support of the cause that they they think is right in this prolonged and debilitating moral debate.
And in that sense, both men deserve our sympathy and prayers, at least as much as our criticism.
BTW, to any readers offended by the bitter tone at the end of my earlier post (#14), I’m sorry that I got carried away in my heated rhetoric. I was venting my frustration, but in an inappropriate and certainly unedifying way.
David Handy+
One more thing. Kendall, or the Elves, I think this thread was given an unfortunate and misleading title. Go back and read what +Gomez said. It’s the decision of what to do about the Covenant that he thinks will make or break the AC. Not the “Non-approval” of the Covenant.
I think the chair of the CDG is quite clear that non-approval of the Covenant will in fact break the AC as we know it. What intrigues me is the opposite side of the coin, that approving the Covenant just might “make” the AC, and allow it be progress to a whole different level of health and effectiveness. I myself don’ put that much stock in the value of the Covenant, even should it be approved, as I expect it will be by most provinces. But it’s an important claim, and needs to be properly understood.
I know this thread hasn’t seemed to generate much interest or many comments, but I still think, FWIW, the title is misleading and ought to be revised.
David Handy+