The best thing that could happen to the proposed covenant for the Anglican Communion at this General Convention is nothing at all.
Though there undoubtedly will be strongly worded resolutions proposed from several quarters, the committee or committees handling these resolutions would do well to promote one that expresses the ongoing commitment of the Episcopal Church to the Anglican Communion in general and to the Windsor/covenant process in particular””and nothing more.
That’s because the present draft of the proposed covenant is not yet in its final form. There has not been sufficient opportunity to study it carefully. The time is not yet ripe for General Convention to engage in extensive debate and formal consideration of this proposal.
Bravo, a woman with integrity! This perfectly reasonable appeal is just what you’d expect from a member of the Covenant Design Group, committed to upholding the value of their hard work and the value of continued participation in the worldwide AC.
But will that appeal fall on deaf ears? We’ll soon see.
It brings me my mind the last time that Dr. Grieb made a memorable, eloquent, sensible appeal to TEC’s leaders, namely after the Dar es Salaam Primates’ Meeting, when she urged volunatry restraint on the part of TEC in choosing not to attend the Lambeth Conference, in deference to the criticisms of TEC leveled in the Windsor Report and the Dar accords. That wise counsel was rejected, of course, and it doesn’t appear even to have been taken seriously.
And I doubt that this appeal will fare any better. And I’d guess that she knows that quite well. But it’s to her credit that she made her appeal anyway.
FWIW, she’s also a decent NT scholar. Her book on Romans is quite good.
David Handy+
#1. NRA,
[blockquote]…our honoring the covenant process would signal clearly that the Episcopal Church will not make a pre-emptive pronouncement about the anticipated outcome as if we could determine it in advance. Our considered restraint would show our willingness to listen to other voices within the Anglican Communion and to learn from them.[/blockquote]
It was TEC that didn’t want to accept section four. Who is she kidding about “listening to others”. Dr. Grieb as a coauthor has been publicly silent about the merit of the AC. Where was her support for the covenant prior to the meeting of the ACC? Dr. Radner was encouraging TEC to consider it. I think you misread her intent on why TEC should not attending Lambeth also. I still have her speech to the House of Bishops bookmarked. It stands in marked contrast to Dr. Radner’s speech.
Moreover, +Mouneer made it clear that his province intends to move forward on the basis of the Ridley draft, and he sees this as perfectly consistent with remarks made to him by the ABC in Jamaica, after the debacle there. Study it, discuss it, don’t be held back…one can see his remarks in the files and also those of +Mouneer. Grieb’s comments are counter to this. The gambit here is clear. If TEC were publicly to renounce B033 and show other signs of autonomy, this entails a risk that other provinces would follow +Mouneer and say TEC is asking people to wait for a covenant they will never sign anyway. And the review committee might draw the same conclusion. Hence, Grieb’s plea to just leave everything alone re: covenant. It is interesting to see how the progressives are now so ascendant that the chief concern is not spiking it in the endzone and getting a penalty for excessive displays. There is a risk in all this, and the HOB appears to sense it.
NRA-
I think what Dr. Grieb proposes is quite a long way from Fr. Martins proposal that TEC should live within the Covenant as a sign of good faith, until such time as a decision is made to sign (or not) the final draft. The suggestion that she is putting forward is along the same lines as Dr. Jefferts Shori’s recommendation not to “revisit” B033. In both cases, there is no intent to continue to comply with either document, merely an avoidance, as Dr. Seitz puts it, of “getting a penalty for excessive displays.”
Of course, the difficulty both Fr. Martin and Dr. Grieb’s proposals face is that the current “moderate” position among convention delegates (a position radically to the left of the people who sit in the pews) is that SSBs in some form will pass. As will Title III revisions that will render B033 mute. The point of all this legislative legerdemain is to exit GC with press releases saying on the one hand “TEC affirms all the baptized” and on the other “TEC continues Windsor and Covenant process.” The JSC, which they control, will no doubt issue some report that even though SSBs are being offered “pastorally” in 80 dioceses they have not “authorized” new rites, so everything is ok.
I just don’t think very many people are going to buy it worldwide. The primates certainly will not. And this is going to put the ABC into an extraordinarily difficult position. Of course, as KJS demonstrate at the recent ACC meeting, that is just where she wants him.
I would correct Dr. Grieb on one point:
(emphasis mine)
“Some quarters” should read “three quarters”
1. I thought it was quite a weakly argued piece. It seems to me implausible for anyone who has actually followed the “debates” this week to think that the message TEC is sending to the Communion is, “we want to respectfully listen”.
2. If one genuinely did want to rebuild bridges with the Communion being more positive about the Covenant would be the very first thing one should do this week. (Of course if one simply wanted to buy time and didn’t really care about the Communion – one should ignore the Covenant. But no one is going to be persuaded that you are ignoring it in order to be respectful!)
3. The ABC explicitly said in Jamaica that Provinces could and should respond to the Covenant immediately. Some acknowledgment or response to that request by a member of the Coveannt Design Group might be expected?
4. I feel sad that it is, as ever, so inward looking. TEC’s needs and TEC demands trump everything else.
OK, everyone. I grant the basic point all of you are making in #2-5. Of course, Dr. Grieb’s proposal isn’t really acceptable. I didn’t mean to imply that it was. But I’m willing to grant her the benefit of the doubt that it was a genuinely well-intentioned, sincere attempt at forestalling disaster in terms of further aggravating tensions within the AC. I don’t perceive Katherine Greib as an ideological revisionist in institutionalist’s clothing, like say Ian Douglas.
Of course, it’s true that Grieb’s proposal doesn’t defend the Covenant with the vigor or boldness of Ephraim Radner or Dan Martin. Naturally, she’s still a reappraiser, speaking to other reappraisers. But I wouldn’t judge her to be Machiavellian and crassly manipulative, like say Kenneth Kearon, or the nefarious, utterly untrustworthy PB. I’m willing to take her words at face value.
That doesn’t mean that I myself would be satisfied with TEC doing nothing. Of course not. Nothing less than full and genuine repentance will do. But Dr. Grieb’s appeal wasn’t meant for reasserters. We’re no longer a force to be reckoned with in TEC. It was a plaintive appeal for caution, humility, and restraint on the part of her fellow reappraisers.
So I’d still say, let’s give her credit for trying. I think she’s jousting with a windmill here, but I still prefer to think the intention was honorable and commendable. Dr. Radner would be in a much better position to judge that, since he has worked with her closely on the CDG. But until proven otherwise, I’ll presume her innocent of craven duplicity in making this appeal.
David Handy+