Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church in America (TEC) and a few other churches were strongly opposing the idea of the Covenant especially section 4[2]. Their excuse was that this section is new and has not been studied enough by the Provinces as the other sections have been. They have forgotten that this particular section of the Covenant is in fact the outcome of many deliberations and responses that came from dioceses as well as bishops who attended the Lambeth Conference in 2008. In addition to this, section 4 was already present in the commentary of the St. Andrews draft of the Covenant that was sent to the provinces after the Lambeth Conference. I personal believe that we will never have a perfect Covenant that could be accepted by all, even if we spend another 10 years working in it. TEC also described section 4 as “punitive.” In response to this, it was clarified that the Covenant gives guidance to the Provinces which are responsible for making their own decisions. The Covenant also does not require any changes in the constitutions of the Provinces. In addition to this, section 4 allows Provinces to make amendments to the Covenant after it is accepted. In fact, it is because that section 4 is not strong enough many conservatives described the Covenant as very weak and useless.
My own impression is that the fear behind accepting the text of the Covenant, especially section 4, originates from the desire to avoid anything binding which would affirm the interdependence of the Anglican churches. Denying the interdependence of churches is contrary to the very meaning of the word “Communion.” For this reason without this section, the “Covenant” would not be a Covenant and the word “Communion” would lose its meaning.
May God continue to bless Bishop Mouneer. This is a clear-headed assessment of what happened. I note that he does not think the ABC connived in what happened. He knows the Archbishop, and he was there, so I’m inclined to accept his feelings on this. It doesn’t make any difference, because what happened, is. He suggests that all the more conservative Provinces proceed ahead with considering the Covenant and accepting it anyhow. TEC might very well find itself faced with facts on the ground in spite of this maneuvering.
As Sarah writes at Stand Firm, if you are going to “establish facts on the ground”, you might as well do something that is worthwhile. We all saw the reliability of the Joint Standing Committee…to act in the best interest of the TEClub.
We were delivered from the Ridley draft. See it as the blessing that it is and move on to the writing of a true Covenant that defines a true Communion.
I’m curious to know how this works. Who writes the covenant that will be better? If GS Provinces do what +Mouneer says, will that mean that the GS is also not up to the job of orthodoxy? +Mouneer is himself on the JSC. Why would he do as he is suggesting unless he (and the majority view he reports at Jamaica, including SE Asia, Nigeria, et al) actually thought that the JSC was not going to be a problem and that the covenant had promise of success? I realise that these questions need not point to genuine, workable answers, but it might be good to understand how this better covenant is going to emerge and why a principal figure and his conservative colleagues are wrong.
I too thank God for Bishop Mouneer who once again is willing to speak the truth plainly and with charity at the same time. This sentence struck me [i] Those who think that they won the victory are in fact the losers of a great opportunity and hope for healing of our wounded Communion. [/i] This brought to mind the image of the troops of the White Queen howling triumphantly over the body of the dead Aslan. Boy, were they in for a surprise.
As usual, I agree wholeheartedly with robroy, and I must express strong disagreement with noble Dr. Seitz. I think it’s indisputable that the JSC simply can’t be trusted. Two thirds of its 15 members are currently on the wrong side of this issue and affiliated with the global north, making it extremely unrepresentative of the world’s Anglicans as a whole. And the proposed Covenant plan of merely expanding the JSC somewhat won’t be enough to change that (certainly not anytime soon). Remember the post-Dar es Salaam fiasco where the JSC was willing to give TEC a pass on compliance with the Windsor moratoria, which was absolute patent nonsense and complete hogwash.
Face it, Dr. Seitz, the current wineskins of the AC simply can’t and won’t be saved. We’ve already passed the point of no return. New institutional wineskins will have to be created to replace the present hopelessly dysfunctional ones. And I don’t mean we need to supplement them (the Instruments that have failed us so badly), nor do I mean we must merely revise and renew them; I do in fact mean we have to REPLACE them. This is not time for gradual, incremental, evolutionary change. It’s time for sweeping, drastic, revolutionary chnage, with all that this implies. And I’m quite well aware that it implies a great deal indeed, and that many fine Anglicans won’t be willing to go there.
But that’s what Reformations are all about (including the Catholic Reformation). The New Reformation is here, like it or not. And like the original Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, it’s “a tragic necessity” (Jaroslav Pelikan’s famous phrase). And the disaster in Jamaica (for the Covenant and those who pinned their hopes on it) is probably, as robroy said, a blessing in disguise, because I think it’s highly likely to accelerate the momentum of that New Reformation, as more and more orthodox Anglicans give up on the forlorn and futile hope of saving the current wineskins of the AC.
But that is not to criticize the courageous and eloquent leaders of ACI or the CP bishops or the non-FCA primates in the GS who’ve valiantly tried to save the AC as we’ve known it. It was a worthwhile endeavor, and I commend them for it. They gave it their best shot, and they should be honored for their heroic efforts.
But I think it’s increasingly clear that there is no hope whatsoever in the Windsor/Covenant process. Zip. Zilch. Nada. None.
You don’t ask rebellious teenagers who are openly flouting your authroity as parents to help you draft a new plan for preserving family harmony that depends on their voluntary cooperation. That would be insane. But that’s essentially what the Windsor/Covenant process amounts to.
David Handy+
What DID Rowan Williams *really* do and say in Jamaica? Rowan Williams is an enigma. After Dar Es Salaam, everyone who tried to parse his words came up with totally opposite interpretations.
Today, Mouneer Anis’ writes defending Williams.
Like the observers of Dar, however, +Anis sees Williams’ actions during the ACC meeting completely different from several notable others who were there and who were not.
One who differs with +Anis is A.S.Haley, who as a Harvard trained lawyer surely knows what he saw and heard on tape. Haley wrote:
“When Dr. Rowan Williams took the floor (not just once, but three times) to announce that he in effect supported Bishop Schori’s demand for further work to be done on Part IV of the Covenant, he forfeited the last shreds of the integrity he had sacrificed to keep the process going to that point.â€
How about both? On the one hand, I agree with Sarah and robroy – if the GS is going to push a Covenant through absent Rowan Williams, they might as well push a better draft then the RCD. On the other hand, I agree with Chris Seitz – there currently is no credible alternative draft.
Thus why not pursue a two pronged approach. First, follow Radner’s advice and have all the conservative provinces immediately sign up to what is an admittedly very flawed Covenant in the RCD. The RCD is deeply flawed, yet it still has managed to scare the what-for out of TEC, and I still doubt that TEC would ever sign any Covenant. So, go ahead and push on the RCD.
Second, assemble a balanced group of GAFCON and non-GAFCON orthodox primates and create a new Covenant – largely based on the RCD but re-writing Section 4. This will probably take a year or so to hammer out.
Thanks. I have spoken with +Mouneer and others and so naturally count on their first-hand observations. God bless. CRS+
RE: “Who writes the covenant that will be better?”
Well, I would assume the Primates who wish to all sign on to a Covenant that has not been approved by the ACC to send forth to the provinces. Seems simple enough.
RE: “If GS Provinces do what +Mouneer says, will that mean that the GS is also not up to the job of orthodoxy?”
Not at all. It’s perfectly possible to be wrong about strategy — or the nature of the character of the ABC — without being wrong about orthodoxy.
RE: “Why would he do as he is suggesting unless he (and the majority view he reports at Jamaica, including SE Asia, Nigeria, et al) actually thought that the JSC was not going to be a problem and that the covenant had promise of success?”
Who knows? Why do many people of good will make mistaken decisions? It is a mystery. One could point to mistaken strategic actions from 2004 onward — and indeed people have. It’s just that other people don’t believe that they’ve continually made mistaken strategic decisions over and over and over. Some don’t believe that the continually repeated actions of the ABC over the past four years demonstrate a deliberate manipulative desire to aid the advance of progressive theology concerning sexuality. Were the former people to come to a shift in their thinking — and a recognition of those strategic mistakes — certainly it would be utterly crushing to realize just how wrong their interpretations and predictions have repeatedly been. I just don’t think most people can come to those sorts of devastating conclusions about mistaken past directions and decisions except by the grace of God. It’s too heavy and terrifying otherwise.
People are real mysteries and are often inexplicable regarding their actions.
But thankfully the grace of God sometimes does break in and dramatic changes occur in people’s perspectives and beliefs. As RobRoy said, what a great blessing that the Ridley Covenant was not approved by the ACC — and by the scuttling of Rowan Williams himself who managed to 1) make a nice speech of support for the Covenant as a whole, while at the same time 2) segmenting off Section Four for another committee other than the CDG, and 3) allowing TEC to not have to experience any Covenant pressure at GC 2009.
Perfectly played.
Dr. Seitz, I am not in Bishop Mouneer’s confidence, and you have spoken to him, as you say. I am judging merely by what he has written. As written, it sounds like Bishop Mouneer does not have confidence in the JSC and that he does not have confidence that a covenant will emerge from the Communion processes. Based on previous performance of the ACO, if that’s what he thinks, it’s a skepticism I share.
9. The point is that +Mouneer and his conservative colleagues are not going to write another covenant, but adopt the one already written. So your comment about writing a new covenant is confusing. Who is going to write this new covenant? (It is not clear that Gafcon-type movements need a covenant at all for they have documents governing their life already, unless I have missed something).
10. The steps left for reviewing Section 4 are not entirely laid out yet (who will be on the committee, etc). In theory, Section 4 could be left alone. In the meantime, Bishop Mouneer is counseling that provinces go ahead and move forward, citing the ABC’s language from his final speech (and his own sense of the ACC meeting on the ground).
Who is going to write the new Covenant? I believe the that the Windsor report was not specific on this. Dr. Noll stated that the orthodox provinces were about write their own but were headed off by Rowan’s appointing of the Covenant Design Group which contained some very reasonable players. What happened? With two watering downs, we arrive at the lame Ridley Covenant two and half years later. Rowan is very supportive of this…right up to the point where it is going to be sent to the provinces where he becomes Ms Schori’s [url=http://sandycooke.com/images/Sock_Puppet_2_small.jpg ]sock puppet[/url].
But wasn’t Rowan “angry” after the vote? I don’t know, but I do know that EVERYTHING that Rowan has done has forestalled any consequences for the TEClub. Is Rowan Ms Schori’s sock puppet? Or maybe it is the other way around. Who knows and who cares? What is definitely true is that the orthodox are marionettes in all of this.
Let the orthodox provinces write a decent Covenant like they were going to do prior to Rowan’s heading them off. It won’t take two and a half years. “But it won’t be a communion wide effort!”, I can hear people objecting. Precisely. That isn’t a bug, that’s a feature.
Given the historic procedural irregularities among the various instruments, along with the disproportionate representation of the west, it is a bit curious that procedural rigidity in the drafting of a new covenant would be an prerequisite for its adoption.
At any rate, I would imagine that it would not be the procedure for drafting of a covenant that would be the primary question, but the substance of the covenant itself and the procedural regularity of its adoption. Perhaps +Mounir could draft a covenant himself, in consultation with the other GS primates.
RE: “The point is that +Mouneer and his conservative colleagues are not going to write another covenant, but adopt the one already written.”
Yes, and how unfortunate. They ought not to. The Ridley covenant is a sham.
But certainly they may do as they please.
RE: “In the meantime, Bishop Mouneer is counseling that provinces go ahead . . . ”
Right — I understand. I think that’s just a really bad idea. But he’s a great man and again, may think and do as he pleases. I’ve written elsewhere as a lay peon what I wish that the conservative Primates of the Anglican Communion would do. I assure you that it’s not particularly surprising if they don’t do those things.
But I’ll continue stating what I think ought to happen, here and elsewhere.
While I think it very unfortunate that Rowan Williams revealed himself — yet again — as such a manipulative, deceitful person in delaying the Covenant deliberately and working to defang the future Covenant, it still can turn out to be a boon that the Ridley Covenant wasn’t approved.
As I stated elsewhere: [blockquote]”I think accepting the Ridley Draft would be a huge mistake.
First, the Ridley Draft puts everything into the hands of the Joint Standing Committee and has no consequences—none whatsoever—written into the draft.
Second, even were various provinces to foolishly sign on to the Ridley Draft—the ABC would continue modifying the section four that he and his TEC allies want to modify. I think we’ve all recognized—with the possible exception of many of the conservative Primates—that Rowan will have what Rowan will have.
The result is that we’d end up with two Covenants.
Now.
That’s not in itself a bad thing at all.
[i]But if we’re going to end up with two Covenants, then shouldn’t we have at least one really good Covenant?[/i]
This is all about a negotiation. You never start with something intrinsically weak and flawed and not that good for your first offer.
There is further discussion in the comments here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22526/
Again, for provinces to all sign on to the Ridley Draft in a “facts on the ground†effort would be a massive mistake for not much of any facts on the ground either.[/blockquote]
The complete Ridley-Hall draft of the Covenant, despite its flaws, may serve as an adequate instrument for a strong conservative coalition among Global South primates… including GAFCON primates. As this coalition grows, the recalcitrance and obfuscation of TEC/Canada/NZ/Scotland etc. will become ever more scandalous… and the common ground with ACNA ever more apparent.
GAFCON/ACNA have their own “documents”, as Chris Seitz notes, but this does not prevent them from expressing support, even endorsing, the pro-Covenant initiative. Once realized, we might see a next stage of tightening the Ridley Hall draft emerge. ACC and JSC will simply have to sit on the sidelines. At last, the global South epicenter of global Anglicanism will assume its proper role–that’s to be expected sooner or later.
This is all speculation, but it is not unreasonable if +Mauneer makes his case, successfully, among the Global South primates. Neither is it unfounded speculation given the epicenter-model of church history–see Andrew Walls and Lamen Sanneh.
Sorry for the several typos in [13] – must be insufficient coffee.
I am aware that some (many?) people on this blog, and certainly this thread, have no interest in the Covenant as thus far pursued in the Communion (“sham”, “lame”, “should go to hell”, etc.). Further, I am not that interested myself in convincing these people otherwise since, as I will explain, I think their dismissal at this point may well be irrelevant, and, in any case, there is little indication that changing minds is something that happens much among Anglicans.
An important reality to bear in mind in all this, though, is that the Covenant process, so-called, has had the consistent support of the Global South primates from the start, not only in its abstract conception, but in its concrete development. In 2006, for instance, the GS Primates’ Steering Committee said: “We have noted with great appreciation proposals for an Anglican Covenant from a number of provinces and we have established a Committee to analyze each proposal and identify common themes as well as those contributions that are unique. The goal will be to develop a coherent proposal for an Anglican Covenant that represents the core convictions of the Global South Provinces as our contribution towards the development of an Anglican Covenant as requested in the Windsor Reportâ€. The “proposal†they offered proved to be the most prominent basis upon which the Nassau Draft of the Covenant was formulated, a version that did not in the least “water down†that proposal, but in large measure made it more robust.
In 2008, the Global South Primates wrote, in response to the St. Andrews’ Draft: “we fully affirm the Windsor process in the Anglican Covenant Design Group proposals and the Windsor Continuation Group presentations. We urge the official endorsement of the proposed Anglican Covenant by ACC 14 in May 2009â€. Again, there was no issue about “watering down†the proposals, although obviously changes had been made since the first draft.
Some here will contrast these drafts with the Jerusalem Declarations and so on, noting that the former are really much “better†and stronger than the latter, and remembering that a few voices from the Gafcon gathering were highly critical of the official Covenant drafts. But there are three things to be said here: first, a comparison of the Declaration with the Covenant drafts, including the most recent, shows rather strong convergence than difference (I will come to one of the differences in a moment); second, the highly critical voices out of Gafcon were non-representative and were later marginalized by more recent official statements regarding the Covenant; and third, the public voices of the GS churches have been consistent in affirming not only the Covenant process but, more recently – as with Abp. Mouneer – the most recent draft.
What a simple – and I would even call simplistic – dismissal of the Ridley Draft now flies in the face of is this consistent support, support that comes from the very people to whom some are looking to provide another “real†Covenant’s articulation. There is an assumption seemingly being made here that the CDG’s work has been done in some vacuum outside of sympathetic engagement and consultation with a wide range of Anglican leaders, including quite positive ones with Global South leaders, such that its shape and purpose have irresponsibly drifted away from the real needs of Christian witness amongst Anglicans. This is an assumption belied by the facts.
Now, to one major difference between the Jerusalem Declaration and the Ridley Draft that I know some here will point to, viz. the “adjudicatory†mechanism, in the former case assigned to a “councilâ€, in the latter, to the JSC in consultation with other groups of the Communion. That is a legitimate difference to discuss. But the evaluation of this difference is by no means as clear-cut as some would like to think. In the first place, the need for checks and balances in this kind of ministry of adjudication is, in my view (and that of many), essential; and those who do not seek it now will be clamoring for it later. A simple look at how current disputes are dealt with in many GS churches will demonstrate the need for such checks and balances. Although some here would dispute it, I certainly believe the councils of the GS or ACNA to be as prone to corruption as anybody else’s. That is why our Articles of Religion have always stood on the claim the “councils may err†even in matters of “faithâ€. Beware! Second, following many of the GS Primates’ and bishops’ expressed views about the Ridley Draft before the ACC meeting, Abp. Mouneer is himself still surprisingly sanguine about the possibility of the JSC performing the role granted it in the Ridley draft. More so than am I! But he does indeed know far more about this than anybody – I repeat, ANYBODY – on this blog. And the fact that he has come to a conclusion regarding Rowan Williams’ role at the ACC that is far different from the malicious judgments expressed here is hardly due to his being a polite person (although he is that, unlike many). He was actually present, and he has spent a good deal of time in conversation with Abp. Williams before, during, and after the meeting. I am somewhat amused, therefore, at the negative certainties expressed by observers from afar. More than that, of course, I don’t think these expressed certainties are particularly helpful. I am obviously not happy about the way things proceed much of the time in and among our Anglican churches. But the notion that one should just forget about everyone among whom the difficulties emerge (a wider group than some here will admit) and go “get it done by oneself†is naïve, at least historically. And Abp. Mouneer is nothing if not realistic about life in the church within this world. That doesn’t make him right, and others wrong. But taking him a little more seriously would seem a reasonable response under the circumstances.
I see no problem with the global south adopting the Ridley Draft agreement, and soon. It even strikes me as the better course. A flawed agreement, entered into among those of good faith, will right itself if need be. But if those not of good faith enter into it, then, it does not matter what it says; it will just be ink on a page.
I can only second what Ephraim says in respect especially of +Mouneer in Jamaica and his take on things. He fought very hard and is very clear in his estimate of matters.
Thanks to Dr. Radner and Dr. Seitz for their respectful participation in this thread. It’s helpful. I commend you for all your hard work over the years in trying to hold the AC together on the basis of a better articulated common faith. It was (and to some extent still is) a noble cause. Probably a forlorn, hopeless cause, but a heroic one nonetheless.
But I stand by what I wrote above (#5). Only I’ll add that I welcome the idea of jamesw (#7) and others that it’s possible and even desirable that orthodox Anglicans pursue BOTH strategies simultaneously, some working on the basis of making the best of the Ridley Draft as is, and some of us (myself included) preferring to see a much stronger and more rigorous Covenant adopted by as many conservative provinces and other Anglican entitiies as are willing to do so.
I myself by no means consider the Jerusalem Declaration sacrosanct or inviolable, although I much prefer it to the current proposed Covenant. GAFCON didn’t claim to have the last word in this wearisome, prolonged conflict. But it was a strong, uncompromising word, rather like the Barmen Declaration of 1934.
And that’s precisely why I like it. The Covenant is a compromise document. And I personally HATE compromise documents. Which is one reason why I’m not very fond of the 39 Articles either.
Of course, I recognize that there’s always an element of compromise in conciliar statements such as the Nicene Creed or the Calcedonian Confession of AD 451, etc. And yes, as Dr. Radner reminded us, councils can err, and in fact have erred, even in essential matters. But the times call for a bold, ringing affirmation of Christian orthodoxy that explicitly denounces and rules out the relativistic, antinomian “working theology” that is dominant in TEC and the ACoC and so much of Global North Anglicanism.
And if that leads to the shattering of the institutional unity of the AC, well, so be it! And I mean that literally. What is needed is REAL unity, not some superficial, merely institutional unity that has no actual substance to it and glosses over incompatible differences.
David Handy+
[blockquote]But the times call for a bold, ringing affirmation of Christian orthodoxy that explicitly denounces and rules out the relativistic, antinomian “working theology†that is dominant in TEC and the ACoC and so much of Global North Anglicanism. [/blockquote]
NRA,
Are you of the opinion that when these ‘times’ happen, we should start over from scratch in terms of ordering our Churches? What kind of track record does this methodology of ‘revolution’ have in terms of Christian witness in North America? Thanks for any clarification you might be able to provide.
RE: “I am aware that some (many?) people on this blog, and certainly this thread, have no interest in the Covenant as thus far pursued in the Communion (“sham”, “lameâ€, “should go to hellâ€, etc.).”
I’m certainly interested in a real Covenant with real consequences. But it’s been clear from the beginning — and steadily more and more clear as each draft came out — that a real Covenant wasn’t going to happen. C’est la vie.
RE: “Further, I am not that interested myself in convincing these people otherwise since, as I will explain, I think their dismissal at this point may well be irrelevant, and, in any case, there is little indication that changing minds is something that happens much among Anglicans.”
I agree. Nor am I interested in convincing those who have based their hopes for Communion unity on the Covenant and the ABC’s actions — it’s been clearly shown now that there is [i]nothing that the ABC could do now that would cause those hopes to change[/i], and that’s fine. So my comments about the Covenant and the ABC are not at all to attempt to convince, say, members of the ACI of anything at all.
It is certainly almost 100% probable, also, that my dismissal of the Covenant is completely irrelevant. All that I can do is attempt to assert what I believe clearly so that those whose hopes are not set in concrete can think of other options for themselves, which of course I have done for the past four years and many other members of TEC as well, thankfully.
RE: “An important reality to bear in mind in all this, though, is that the Covenant process, so-called, has had the consistent support of the Global South primates from the start, not only in its abstract conception, but in its concrete development.”
Well — it will certainly be fascinating to see which provinces sign on to the Ridley Draft. That will certainly reveal just how much they support its “concreteness.” I await that with interest.
RE: “What a simple – and I would even call simplistic – dismissal of the Ridley Draft now flies in the face of is this consistent support, support that comes from the very people to whom some are looking to provide another “real†Covenant’s articulation.”
Well, I certainly am not “looking” for them to provide another “real” Covenant. I’m merely asserting what I believe ought to happen — but as I’ve pointed out before, much of the time over the past five years what I believe ought to happen doesn’t happen at all. One can only, as a lay peon, continue to assert what I believe and engage with those who are looking for other options. And that I have and will do, just as Ephraim Radner will do what he can do on his end and in far more powerful circles. I’m pleased with my small efforts just as I’m sure Ephraim Radner is pleased with his own large efforts.
RE: “Although some here would dispute it, I certainly believe the councils of the GS or ACNA to be as prone to corruption as anybody else’s.”
I completely agree that they are as prone to corruption, although it is nice that they are most likely entirely made up of people who believe and promote the Christian gospel. That’s always a plus.
RE: “I am somewhat amused, therefore, at the negative certainties expressed by observers from afar.”
Well I suppose we’re both smiling, but for rather different reasons. I’m sure that both the transcript and video tape of what precisely the ABC and others said during the debacle which the ABC helped create tells us all [i]absolutely nothing[/i]. We’re just utterly ignorant.
RE: “But the notion that one should just forget about everyone among whom the difficulties emerge (a wider group than some here will admit) and go “get it done by oneself†is naïve, at least historically.”
No more than thinking that the ABC will let the conservative Primates get away with “getting it done by themselves.” What an ironic line — just as the cry goes up for the conservative Primates to put facts on the ground by “approving the Ridley draft” so the cry goes up by the same people not to “get it done by oneself” [i]for those same Primates[/i] to actually come up with a real Covenant with consequences.
Rich.
[blockquote]”Denying the interdependence of churches is contrary to the very meaning of the word “Communion.” For this reason without this section, the “Covenant” would not be a Covenant and the word “Communion” would lose its meaning.”[/blockquote]
I agree with this, inasmuch as it identifies one of the symptoms of the present organization operating under the name Anglican Communion. I would venture to suggest that the inability of the instruments of ‘unity’ to advance (or even conserve) their raison d’etre is yet another symptom. And of course, the failure to discipline or break communion within a Christian body speaks for itself.
[blockquote]”…much of the time over the past five years what I believe ought to happen doesn’t happen at all.”[/blockquote]
Same here, LOL. Somehow, what I believe ought to happen never even makes it [i]into the dialogue[/i] as within the realm of possibility. Funny thing is, though – it was possible with early church, and is today with some branches.
; – )
This line bugged me, too: “I am somewhat amused, therefore, at the negative certainties expressed by observers from afar.”
I have said before that no one knows what lies in the hearts of men especially one as quagmiry as RW, but we can be most certain about tangible actions:
1) Rowan’s pushing the silly subcommittee report at DeS.
2) The allotting of only four hours to the American question at DeS.
3) The undermining of the DeS communique by the early invitations.
4) The statement that a deadline isn’t a deadline.
5) The evaluation of the HoB meeting not by the primates themselves but the primates and the ACC through the very distorted lens of the JSC report – such a flawed process that half the players refused to play.
6) The indabafication of Lambeth.
7) The indabafication of the Alexandria primates meeting.
8) The speaking out in favor of deep sixing the Covenant, just at the point where it was about to be sent out to the provinces.
These are [i]certainties[/i] that are readily seen from afar. One doesn’t have to look into any murky motivations. But it is hard not to think about his never disavowed statement that homosexual relations can be equivalent to Christian marriage.
So what to do now? I know from listening to ABp Orombi that Uganda has had enough of the talking games. He rightly sees that the battle will be won through evangelization not kicking the can down the road, hence his choosing the New Wineskins Conference. He has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from him.
The call to sign on to the not-long-for-this-world Ridley Draft is poorly thought out. Simply consider the outcome. There will only be a few if any that actually do it. Middle East, Tanzania, Burundi, maybe a few others? (Remember the call by the ACI to appoint members to the DeS mandated committee.) The result is that the orthodox look divided and weak. The status quo wins. The TEClub wins. This is Strategery 101, know the probable outcome of a given action and want that outcome.
“[T]here is little indication that changing minds is something that happens much among Anglicans.”
Indeed, but who is the intransigent? Despite many predictions, that a Rowan Williams dependent solution to the present mess will fail. Despite reaffirmation after reaffirmation of this, we have people continuing to say, let’s give a Rowan Williams dependent solution one more try. Rowan Williams has proved very dependable – at can kicking.
There is now complete justification of saying we won’t play the games with the rigged rules that assure stalemate (thereby giving the ultimate victory to the revisionists). Windsor never specified the mechanism of the writing of the Covenant. There is an opportunity for the orthodox to speak with unified voice which is the only hope for saving the Communion. Calls for signing on to the Ridley Draft – a rather pointless exercise – works against this opportunity.
Bishop Mouneer & the ACI’s attempts to put facts on the ground by refusing to wait on the Instruments of Unity is an odd position for them to be advocating, and seems rather desperate.
If the ABC and JSC are so great and trustworthy, why not wait until after the JSC’s meeting to call on provinces to act? Why call on provinces to adopt the Ridley Draft now?
Why in the world would a province jump through all the canonical hoops to ennact a ‘draft’; a draft that has not yet recieved the endorsement of any Instrument, and could be made obsolete by January?
The related, and deeper question is this, “How does the Ridley draft lose it’s ‘draft’ status and begin to carry authority?” Before the ACC meeting, the answer to this question was that the idea of a Covenant was supported (in principle) by two instruments (Lambeth & the Primates Meeting) and the actual content that fleshed out the ‘idea of a Covenant’ would be given some authority by the other two instruments (ACC & ABC). This endorsement would be the culmination of a long process and the ‘draft’ designation would drop off.
However since the ACC kicked the can, how now does the ‘draft’ become an official ‘text’? The logical answer would be, “Once the ABC & JSC pass on the Covenant in it’s final form later this year (or outline a process to kick the can to another Instrument at a later time).”
The ACI says, “No, the draft can become a text now.”
How you ask? The answer, according to ACI, is two fold:
Step One: Fire up Microsoft Word, use the “Find/Replace” function and viola, the Ridley Draft becomes the Ridley Text (see latest ACI statement & compare with pre-ACC meeting ACI statements).
Step Two: Encourage provinces to sign up for the “Draft/Text” in the hopes of putting pressure on the ABC and JSC to treat the “draft” as a “text,” thus making the “Find/Replace” trick a prophetic act.
It really doesn’t matter how much Archbishop Mouneer and the ACI say, “We are optimistic and sanguine about the ABC and JSC,” because actions speak louder than words, and they are calling for actions that might preempt revisions by the ABC and JSC.
optimus prime (#21),
Thanks for asking for clarification of what I meant by calling for revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary change in Anglican polity structures. I fully understand if you’re very skeptical about the value of drastic Reformations, with the polarization and division they inevitably tend to provoke. You have plenty of good company, if you’re worried that such a course is fraught with the risk of fomenting the kind of fragmentation that has sadly marked Protestantism, especially in its free church or restorationist forms.
Skeptics can reasonably point to the constant fracturing or at least perennial subdividing of American Protestantism. How many denominations are there now in North America today? Over a thousand, some might say over 2 or 3 thousand (depending on how you count them). And yes, that’s a scandal, I’d agree.
But not all revolutionary movements in the Church have in fact led to long-lasting splits. The Catholic Reformation (which was more than a Counter Reformation) is one example; Vatican II’s drastic reforms are another. And an earlier example would be the profound, truly revolutionary changes in church polity inaugurated by Pope Gregory VII in the late 11th century (including the imposition of mandatory clerical celibacy and a vast centralization of power in the papacy). Or take the creation of the mendicant orders, the Franciscans and Dominicans. They didn’t live in one stable place, like all monks and nuns before them, but roamed around, preaching and serving the Lord in ways that were shockingly new and innovative. They definitely represented a radical break with previous monastic tradition and those two new orders pioneered some new wineskins for the monastic life, but they weren’t involved in any schismatic breakaway from the hierarchy of the Latin Catholic Church. Yet neither were the Franciscans and Dominicans content with merely gradual, incremental change.
So to get back to your original question, optimus prime, am I of the opinion that this New Reformation the times call for requires “starting over from scratch” in terms of ordering the Church? Not at all! Of course not. So please don’t jump to conclusions, and bear with me as patiently as you can.
For example, as much as I admire Martin Luther (my favorite reformer by far), I myself emphatically reject Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, which states that “it is sufficient” for the unity of the Church that the Word of God be rightly preached and taught and the two gospel sacraments be rightly administered. I think the sad history of divisions within Lutheranism itself shows that agreement on those two key points is NOT sufficient for maintaining the unity of the Church, for nothing less than VISIBLE unity will do. Taking refuge in the usual evangelical fashion in the imagined unity of the invisible “true” church (the true believers who are known only to God) is far from the kind of real, visible unity the New Testament calls us to strive for and maintain (1 Cor. 1; Eph. 4, etc.).
I also fully uphold the importance of maintaining the apostolic succession. Indeed, personally I think the 4th side of the famous Lambeth Quadrilateral needs to be revised to include the necessity of upholding not only the so-called “historic episcopate” but also the historic diaconate as well, as “a full and equal order.” That is, I myself do regard the patristic pattern of the church polity, in its general shape, as binding and normative. And I tend to think that would normally include real archbishops with acutal juridical, coercive, jurisdictional powers over the bishops under them, in patristic fashion. And obviously, more than the low-church Sydney gang would have stout and fierce objections to that.
My point, however, is that we’re not talking about a break in the apostolic succession here. We’re not talking about a small schism led by one bishop like Kentucky’s +Cummins who started the REC around 1870. We’re talking about MASSIVE numbers of Anglicans, led by the primates and bishops of the MAJORITY of the world’s Anglicans, who would take the lead in re-ordering the polity structures of Anglicanism at the international level. Let’s keep in mind that two of the four “Instruments of Unity” or Communion (the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting) are only about one generation old (forty years or less). They are very recent creations, and the all-important fact is that they were never designed to handle the kind of crisis we’re now facing, so it’s hardly surprsing that they’ve failed so miserably at resolving the dispute that’s tearing the AC apart. They were designed for the purpose of consultation and fostering inter-provincial cooperation, and deliberately not for the governance of a worldwide church with a unified structure. And in that way they resemble the failed original Articles of Confederation by which the 13 original American colonies tried to organize themselves, with a very weak, minimal federal government. It didn’t work for the States in the late 18th century, and it’s not working for Anglicanism in the early 21st century either.
To be continued…
David Handy+
A ccontinuation of my #26,
So if you’re worried, optimus prime (#21), about the strong tendency of radical, revolutionary movments within the Church to foment bitter, long-lasting divisions, I can certainly understand that. Indeed, I’d share your profound concern. After all, the history of American Protestantism is tragically marked by endless fragmentation, and so is the history of the so-called “continuing church” movement among Anglo-Catholics in the USA, who have continuously splintered since the 1970s when the issues of WO and the drastic revision of the BCP in TEC led a significant number of prayerbook Christians to depart from TEC.
But the Jerusalem Declaration is not the same as the Affirmations of St. Louis, and the two movements aren’t really comparable. For, thanks be to God, the ACNA is heading in the opposite direction of fragmentation and is uniting many small splinter groups in a very encouraging, if imperfect, way. Now of course, whether the ACNA will continue to coalesce and truly form a united church or province still remains to be seen, but I remain caustiously optimistic on that score. Time will tell.
But we must always remember who the real schismatics are. And they AREN’T people like +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted, or +Jack Iker the Valiant, or +John Guernsey, or +Bill Atwood, or ++Peter Akinola, or ++Henry Orombi. No, the real schismatics are the heretical leaders of TEC and the ACoC who have stubbornly insisted on “walking apart” (to put it mildly), and who have hijacked those institutions and recklessly taken them off into schism. For heresy is inherently schismatic.
And REAL unity, the only kind worthy of the name, must be based on genuine unity on the essentials of the Christian faith and life, as defined by Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. But the four current Instruments of the AC are not, by any stetch of the imagination, part of the essentials. They are highly dispensable, unlike the patristic pattern of structuring the church in terms of bishops in apostolic succession, priests, and (permanent) deacons.
I know that’s a long, rambling, incomplete answer to a legitimate concern expressed in a short post, optimus prime. But I hope it helps clarify things. At least from my standpoint, as an advocate of truly radical, revolutionary change. And I haven’t even gotten into what I consider the most radical concept of all, the need to move away from the obsolete old wineskins of the familiar Elizabethan Settlement and the Constantinian, Christendom structures we’ve taken for granted for so long to a wholly new KIND of Anglicanism that’s not only Global (instead of England-centered) and Post-Colonial (instead of western-dominated), but also thoroughly and unabashedly “Post-Christendom” in nature as well. And that means a decisive and radical break from our state church heritage and the whole “folk kirche” type of Christianity we’ve inherited, with the embracing of an explicitly “gathered church” or “believer’s church” ecclesiology in its place. Now that’s really revolutionary! But it’s a topic for another day, or another thread.
David Handy+
Hi NRA (or would you prefer David Handy+),
[blockquote]But not all revolutionary movements in the Church have in fact led to long-lasting splits.[/blockquote] Agreed.
[blockquote]The Catholic Reformation (which was more than a Counter Reformation) is one example; Vatican II’s drastic reforms are another.[/blockquote]
For the most part the reforms of Vatican II have not been been implemented. The result? The process of discerning Scripture in light of ‘Tradition’ resides primarily within the curia (pope and CDF). The ‘mind of the faithful’ (their discernment of the faith) remains unheard amongst the decision-making bodies of the Church because the bishops (both for structural reasons and for practical reasons) do not communicate the local discernment to the universal levels of the Church. For a good example of how this has worked in practice, compare the whole process (not just the official Church’s statements themselves – this won’t reveal anything) of the RCC’s discernment concerning the issue of women’s ordination (during the 1960s and early 70s just post Vat II) with the RCC’s discernment and response to the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission’s [i]The Final Report[/i] in 1991. You’ll discover that the decision-making practices of the Church have remained the same. Let me be clear that I am not arguing here that had they had different decision-making practices, they would have allowed for women’s ordination or for the acceptance of the ARCIC documents and that these would have been good things; rather I am arguing that the discernment processes have accounted for where the faithful are actually at in their understanding of the faith. The result is that while the top levels of the Church might articulate one thing, the members of the Church may in fact represent a much wider range of views, and in fact practice a much different faith than that which is articulated by the hierarchy. You might view the Church as being reformed given ‘official articulations;’ but the reality on the ground is a different story. For a good article on the failures to receive Vat II’s reforms in this particular vein see: “The Office of the Bishop within the Communio Ecclesiarum: Insights from the Ecclesiology of Jean-Marie Tillard.” Science et Esprit. 61 (Mai-Dec., 2009): 175-94.
[blockquote]And an earlier example would be the profound, truly revolutionary changes in church polity inaugurated by Pope Gregory VII in the late 11th century (including the imposition of mandatory clerical celibacy and a vast centralization of power in the papacy). Or take the creation of the mendicant orders, the Franciscans and Dominicans. They didn’t live in one stable place, like all monks and nuns before them, but roamed around, preaching and serving the Lord in ways that were shockingly new and innovative. They definitely represented a radical break with previous monastic tradition and those two new orders pioneered some new wineskins for the monastic life, but they weren’t involved in any schismatic breakaway from the hierarchy of the Latin Catholic Church.[/blockquote] Yes this is exactly the point. These reform movements, like the Caroline Divines, like the Oxford Movement (with individual exceptions), like the Jansenists were able to be movements of reform because they stayed within the Church. A movement that breaks away from the Church simply contributes to the fracture of the Church and in so doing, fails miserably to point to the one Jesus Christ. Rather it spends an inordinate amount of time pointing to its own political maneuvering wherein those in the movement seek ‘political victories.’ It is ecclesial division that has failed to point to the Truth and that has led to my generation’s (Y) complete lack of interest in the institutional Church. Why would we need to be a part of any particular Church, and how on earth would one choose anyway? Everyone of them proclaims they’ve got the truth.
[blockquote]Yet neither were the Franciscans and Dominicans content with merely gradual, incremental change.[/blockquote] I disagree with this statement historically. Theologically, gradual and incremental change has to do with submitting ourselves to God’s gathering mission in history; that is, to placing our own ecclesial predicaments into the larger scope of God’s providence and allowing ourselves to be carried where we might not wish to go, but where God will take us. That doesn’t mean we need to sit on our a&&es;. It does however, mean that our Churches need to be structured so as to account for the fact that it is God who reveals himself to us and we who are to witness to that revelation over time. This requires that we maintain the peace and order of the Church which God will quicken in his time. That is our work: how do we serve this Church here and now, even and most particularly in its failures.
[blockquote]That is, I myself do regard the patristic pattern of the church polity, in its general shape, as binding and normative. And I tend to think that would normally include real archbishops with acutal juridical, coercive, jurisdictional powers over the bishops under them, in patristic fashion.[/blockquote] I would agree. Nicholas of Cusa’s argument for his move from supporting the conciliarists (who wished to declare conciliarism as they’d defined it a doctrine of the Church) to supporting the pope. However, you are making an argument using an assumption that I don’t believe you have adequate information to support. Besides your opinion, who says this is true: “We’re talking about MASSIVE numbers of Anglicans, led by the primates and bishops of the MAJORITY of the world’s Anglicans, who would take the lead in re-ordering the polity structures of Anglicanism at the international level.” From the Primate’s meeting to provincial responses to the drafts of the Covenant Agreement to the opinions of those who have more contact with these primates and bishops that you or I which indicate something other than what you have concluded, I’m not sure it is helpful for anyone reading to make such forceful statements.
Furthermore, your arguments run the danger of losing the very means necessary for reform to occur: common decision-making.
In a Church whose only authority is a moral authority (something that I would argue is vital to reform across time which is itself critical to preserving unity in discerning Scripture – as opposed to buttressing tradition with Scripture) the practices which allow for ordered and authoritative decision-making must be preserved. Every Church has a provincial constitution. How would you suggest those Provinces simply drop that which binds them together in order to sign on to a ‘new, start from scratch Covenant Agreement?’ If you want to start from scratch, that is fine – but then let’s not debate whether this is Anglicanism because it isn’t. The Covenant for which I have seen several people on these blogs argue is already in existence in various models of Church out there … why would anyone need to start from scratch … just go join the RCC or the Presbyterians or the Baptists.
The conciliar polity upon which Anglicanism is built (one implicit in Anglicanism) and which the current Ridley Draft of the Covenant makes explicit, is asking Anglican Churches as they now are, to enter into an explicit agreement to which they willingly agree before God. If you want something more juridical – go to Rome or if you don’t like the pope, the assumption of Mary, etc – go to the EOC – I think you’d be surprised at how juridical authority doesn’t play out in practice, as one might expect it should. Anglicanism (as with other Churches) has a particular gift in the relationship it enables between Scripture, autonomy, interdependence, and time. It is very broken right now but that doesn’t mean we have to throw it away and start from scratch. This consumerist model of Churches has been tried and in North America all it has produced is a generation (mine) deaf to God’s call regardless of how supposedly ‘orthodox’ the proclamation.
NRA,
I responded before seeing your second post. So I’ll respond to that now.
[blockquote]But the Jerusalem Declaration is not the same as the Affirmations of St. Louis, and the two movements aren’t really comparable. For, thanks be to God, the ACNA is heading in the opposite direction of fragmentation and is uniting many small splinter groups in a very encouraging, if imperfect, way. Now of course, whether the ACNA will continue to coalesce and truly form a united church or province still remains to be seen, but I remain caustiously optimistic on that score. Time will tell. [/blockquote]
If ACNA follows the history of groups that break off, it will simply continue to fracture … that is simply what historical precedent bears out. I don’t think ACNA churches would be the choice of the next generation. Although only anecdotal, a wide array of evidence would suggest that the next generation is moving in more catholic directions and that is not how ACNA is viewed. It is viewed by many as both a split from the Church and as an entity that will within 20 years itself fracture into several parts. And thus I would suspect, that if they are going to leave, many will likely just skip right over Anglicanism in general and go right to the RCC or the EOC.
[blockquote]But we must always remember who the real schismatics are. And they AREN’T people like +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted, or +Jack Iker the Valiant, or +John Guernsey, or +Bill Atwood, or ++Peter Akinola, or ++Henry Orombi. No, the real schismatics are the heretical leaders of TEC and the ACoC who have stubbornly insisted on “walking apart†(to put it mildly), and who have hijacked those institutions and recklessly taken them off into schism. For heresy is inherently schismatic. [/blockquote]
We’re all schismatics. Furthermore, we are all complicit in the divisions that are occurring. Of course we each have our own particular faults, but we all stand under God’s judgment for this mess – the whole damn Church – not one of us stands outside of this.
#25 Fr. Andrew Gross,
[blockquote]If the ABC and JSC are so great and trustworthy, why not wait until after the JSC’s meeting to call on provinces to act? Why call on provinces to adopt the Ridley Draft now?[/blockquote]
Since the Covenant could be signed onto at any time as we speak, there runs the danger of having two Covenants which would be detrimental to any hope of unity for the Church and to wider Christian witness. Furthermore it is simply unnecessary to wait. None of the Instruments has any authority juridical, or moral (since in this case, the procedures by which a decision was made remove any spiritual or moral authority the process of discernment had) to prevent Provinces that wish to do so from adopting and making the Covenant effective for their lives together. Finally, every Church of the Communion has had ample time for discernment of the Covenant in full view of what has been happening around the wider Church and has had ample time to give input to the process.
[blockquote]Why in the world would a province jump through all the canonical hoops to ennact a ‘draft’; a draft that has not yet recieved the endorsement of any Instrument, and could be made obsolete by January?[/blockquote]
They don’t have to. All they have to do is sign on ‘in principle’ thereby making the current Covenant effective for them as it currently stands while keeping the option open for adopting any changes to section 4 (section 3 has already been agreed to) should those changes be desired, agreed to by the covenanting Church and therefore consistent with the ‘way of life’ laid out in the Covenant.
The Covenant loses its draft status when two or more Churches currently on the ACC schedule sign onto it. So says the Covenant – not ACI or Bishop Mouneer.
[blockquote]The related, and deeper question is this, “How does the Ridley draft lose it’s ‘draft’ status and begin to carry authority?†Before the ACC meeting, the answer to this question was that the idea of a Covenant was supported (in principle) by two instruments (Lambeth & the Primates Meeting) and the actual content that fleshed out the ‘idea of a Covenant’ would be given some authority by the other two instruments (ACC & ABC). This endorsement would be the culmination of a long process and the ‘draft’ designation would drop off.[/blockquote]
Since when did our Instruments gain juridical authority for ordering the life of the Church? Wow, that would certainly solve the problems we’ve been having (of course it would also had a whole pile more). As I’ve said above, the Covenant becomes effective for Churches on the ACC schedule when those Churches sign onto it.
[blockquote] It really doesn’t matter how much Archbishop Mouneer and the ACI say, “We are optimistic and sanguine about the ABC and JSC,†because actions speak louder than words, and they are calling for actions that might preempt revisions by the ABC and JSC.[/blockquote] True enough, but as Sarah said above, there ain’t no harm in putting the ideas out there. By the way, your arguments might be better received were they not so tinged with [i]ad hominems[/i].
optimus prime (#28-29),
Thanks for a thoughtful, extended reply. Unfortunately, I suspect that the Elves might say that we’re in danger of taking this thread pretty far off-topic. So, if you want to continue this discussion I suggest we do it off-line, i.e., privately. I’d enjoy that.
Alas, there are ways in which we seem to be talking past each other, and I don’t think we should monopolize this thread with more long, detailed posts that involve a point-by-point response to each other.
I hope that doesn’t come across as evasive; I seldom avoid a lively debate. But if we get out of the way, perhaps others will rejoin the discussion and enrich it. However, I do thank you for taking my comments seriously enough to interact with them meaningfully.
David Handy+
Many thanks to David Handy’s “ecclesiological” argument from history. Yet another perspective on what is presently happening comes from a missiological sense of history.
Andrew Walls, in “The Christian Tradition in Today’s World,†in Religion in Today’s World, ed. by Frank Whaling (T&T;Clark, 1988) describes how Christianity has grown serially and episodically, without maintaining a single cultural or geographical center. It has also receded as well as advanced along the way. It tends to decline or die out in areas of its greatest strength and reappears, often transformed, in totally different areas of quite distinct culture. “Christian history is a series of cross-cultural movements, which result in a succession of different Christian ‘heartlands’ as the geographical and cultural center of Christianity has changed.”
As another scholar of missiology, Lamin Sanneh, observes “the typical pattern of Christian history is as a movement of the periphery, of the relentless and radical circumvention of the establishment in obedience to a God whose central design leaves earthly arrangements provisional and dispensable.â€
Contemporary Anglicanism bears witness to this, perhaps more so than any other Communion or tradition today. Whenever there has been a movement of ‘epicenters’ in the history of the Church, there has been differentiation, division, and all sorts of messiness in the ecclesiological fabric. It all began with the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) with the movement from the ‘center’ of Jerusalem to the ‘periphery’ at Antioch. This was a painful opportunity for the Church to regain its mission focus. Later would come the disruptions associated with movements from Roman-centeredness to Northern European-centeredness to North American-centeredness to, perhaps, African-centeredness. Always the ‘centeredness’ is discerned in the vibrancy of evangelism and missionary endeavor.
This is more a descriptive exercise of the imagination than a prescription for ‘what to do next.’ It is big-picture thinking that may not seem very useful to those of us–and I do include myself–who are attentive to the ‘structural’ , ‘canonical’, etc. The ecclesiological implications of all this moving and shaking is profoundly important to all of us.
But alongside the sort of history told by David Handy, it offers us a perspective that may be useful… especially for making sense of the otherwise nonsensical or untidy work of renewal and reallignment in contemporary Anglicanism. It may help to foster a bit more patience and charity as we move forward… I certainly hope and pray so.
NRA,
You are probably correct. Let us engage as you suggest. OP.
Phil Harrold (#32),
You’re welcome, and thanks yourself for adding the missiological perspective of Andrew Walls and Lamin Sanneh. I admire both men’s pioneering work.
I’ll only add here that the much respected work of Philip Jenkins of Penn State tends to confirm what you and they have claimed in terms of the rise and fall of Christian cultures or centers throughout history. I think Jenkins’ best-seller, “The Next Christendom” is especially important; but so is his latest example of brilliant historical analysis that’s impeccably reserached and documented, while being engagingly written and quite accessible to non-specialists (a rare combination). I’m referring to his marvelous study, “The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia–and How it Died” (HarperOne, 2008). And the attention-grabbing opening sentence of the book echoes the subtitle and is pretty stunning, “Religons die.” He traces the rise and fall of the Nestorian (or East Syrian) Church that once stretched from Iran to China and dwarfed the Latin Church in Europe, and the Jacobite (or West Syrian, non-Chalcedonian) Church that for centuries dominated much of the Middle East. But the great Church of the (non-Byzantine) East did sadly die, and its glories are scarcely remembered at all today.
It’s possible, of course, that the same terrible, ignominious fate awaits Anglicanism in the western world (or global north), which is in an advanced state of theological rot and spiritual decay. Time will tell. But personally, I think we’re witnessing the beginnings of a whole new stage in the development of Anglicanism, a promising stage in fact in which Anglicanism as a worldwide movement really comes of age and flourishes as never before, even in the heyday of Queen Victoria’s British Empire on which the sun never set. Again, time will tell.
But in the meantime, I’d agree with optimus prime (and many others) that ALL of us in western Anglicanism are suffering a painful season of severe judgment for our grevous sins and heinous failures as stewards of the gospel and the mysteries of God. Lord, have mercy on us all.
David Handy+
Optimus Prime,
I’m not sure why you took such offense. There were no ad hominem attacks in what I wrote, and from reading your post, you and I share the same concern. You said, “…there runs the danger of having two Covenants which would be detrimental to any hope of unity for the Church and to wider Christian witness.â€
That’s precisely the point I raised.
Why sign up to the current draft when we know the ABC, a committee appointed by him, and the JSC will be presenting the (new) text in January?
What the ACI is suggesting is an attempt to put facts on the ground that would create the possibility of two Covenants: the very danger you fear.
In your post, you keep referring to “The Covenant.†I’m not sure what you’re talking about. No Instrument of Unity has yet put forward a Covenant; only a series of drafts. You say that the Instruments have neither juridical nor moral authority. I never suggested they did have juridical authority, but it has been the position of the ACI that the Instruments do have real moral authority and are the last, best hope for saving the Communion (thus the wailing and gnashing of teeth at GAFCON’s non-Instrument-approved Jerusalem Declaration).
The irony is that with a substantial Covenant now in jeopardy due to the ACC’s punting to the ABC and JSC, the ACI have become panicky and advocated that Provinces forgo patience and instead sign up to the Ridley Draft immediately: a draft that remains a non-Instrument approved draft due to shenanigans at the ACC meeting.
I’ll say what I said before, the ACI seems desperate:
1) They’ve taken it upon themselves to change the language to something more formal: changing the word “draft†to “text.â€
2) They’ve advocated Provinces take the draft and give it more authority by signing on immediately.
3) These actions if successful would have the effect of preempting the work of two Instruments.
4) While doing this, the ACI has continued to say, “We trust the ABC and are sanguine about the JSC.â€
5) However, they clearly do not trusting them enough to give them a few more months to work undistracted.
6) And the deeper irony is that should provinces sign up to the Ridley Draft they would be placing themselves under the relational jurisdiction of the very same Instruments that they are now trying to preempt.
This is an incoherent mess, and quite unlike the ACI.
Fr. Andrew Gross,
The issue with waiting until January is that the Covenant in its current form, is open for Provinces to sign onto. There has been expressed desire from Provinces to sign onto the Covenant as is. With nothing limiting their signatures, they could sign on right now (ACI has merely pointed this out, the Provinces themselves have expressed the desire). If that happens, there would be the Covenant at present and then a revised Covenant with no way of bridging those who would sign at present, with those who might sign a revised Covenant.
This is why I assume ACI has suggested an ‘in principle’ acceptance of the Covenant; it allows the Provinces who wish to do so to sign onto a Covenant now while keeping the door open to adopting improvements to the Covenant [i]if[/i] they are compatible with the ‘way of life’ entered into by the covenanting Churches.
The biggest problem in waiting at this point is that many Churches have simply run out of patience with not having practices that have the authority to order our way of life. What has happened at ACC gives the perception of yet another delay tactic and makes it appear as though our Church neither has the capacity or the will to remain one Church. As I’ve said, we’ve had ample time to discern, pray about, provide feedback about, and try to find the best way forward for our Churches without starting from scratch (i.e. starting a bunch of new Churches).
[blockquote]No Instrument of Unity has yet put forward a Covenant; only a series of drafts.[/blockquote]
This is my point about the authority of the Instruments … they don’t need to put forward a Covenant – the Ridley Draft (or whatever you want to call it) is available for Provinces to sign. The Instruments might recommend and suggest – but their recommendation and suggestion (the moral force of these things), is dependent upon clear and ordered processes. Since we can’t actually tell what the expressed will of the Churches is after the ACC meeting (which would have been nice), the only way to determine that at this point is to simply suggest that Provinces proceed according to what is intrinsic to the Covenant Agreement itself: the fact that they are free to sign on.
Again, why wait another 8 months? Let the Churches express their will but do so in an orderly fashion. Suggest they sign ‘in principle’ so that we have some form of agreed to and ordered life begin to develop (since this has been the plea of most of our Churches), but one that leaves the door open for improvements to the Covenant should they be compatible with the manner of life the Covenanting Churches choose.
No one is trying to ‘preempt’ the Instruments. We’re trying to establish an ordered form of life within which the moral authority of the Instruments might actually take effect. This is absolutely not in place right now and the lack of ability for our only authority, moral authority, to be effective in ordering the life of our Churches is a main contributor to why we are tearing apart right now.