An Anglican church cannot simultaneously commit itself through the Anglican Covenant to shared discernment and reject that discernment; to interdependence and then act independently; to accountability and remain determined to be unaccountable. If the battle over homosexuality in The Episcopal Church is truly over, then so is the battle over the Anglican Covenant in The Episcopal Church, at least provisionally. As Christians, we live in hope that The Episcopal Church will at some future General Convention reverse the course to which it has committed itself, but we acknowledge the decisions that already have been taken. These decisions and actions run counter to the shared discernment of the Communion and the recommendations of the Instruments of Communion implementing this discernment. They are, therefore, also incompatible with the express substance, meaning, and committed direction of the first three Sections of the proposed Anglican Covenant. As a consequence, only a formal overturning by The Episcopal Church of these decisions and actions could place the church in a position capable of truly assuming the Covenant’s already articulated commitments. Until such time, The Episcopal Church has rejected the Covenant commitments openly and concretely, and her members and other Anglican churches within the Communion must take this into account. This conclusion is reached not on the basis of animus or prejudice, but on a straightforward and careful reading of the Covenant’s language and its meaning within the history of the Anglican Communion’s well-articulated life.
Another loooonnnnggg article by the ACI. While I enjoy their arguments, in a practical sense it seems more talk about disciple than action.
For years now, TEC has run roughshod over the AC. The ABC leadership has been weak and inconsistent. Why in the world would we expect anything different than the continuation of the status quo?
Every time the Primates have tried to be clear, the ABC has undermined them. Lambeth was another major missed opportunity. TEC believes it is prophetic and as such they must go forward. This has been clear for several GC’s. But to make matters worse, no one can trust what the PB’s of TEC say! Former PB Griswold agreed to one thing and then did the exact opposite. The current PB has followed the same pattern. TEC shouldn’t have any say in AC matters…but they do!
Arguments are fine, but talk is cheap. The EC has been fragmenting for the the last six years and it will continue. The AC faces the same thing unless action is taken…more action, less talk.
There have been a number of missed opportunities. I dare say time is running out if it is not already out.
Of course, only God knows when it has run out….but I will venture to say we are getting closer to that point if we are not already there.
[blockquote]An Anglican church cannot simultaneously commit itself through the Anglican Covenant to shared discernment and reject that discernment; to interdependence and then act independently; to accountability and remain determined to be unaccountable.[/blockquote]
Of course TEC can. Who is going to call them on it? Not the ABC and certainly not the ACC. Lambeth is ten years away and the ABC will not let the matter come before the Primates.
Indeed, the reason TGC will happpily sign on to the first three sections of the covenant, even though they have no intention of conforming to them, is because they know precisely nothing will be done as a result of their non-conformance. So they ratify sections 1-3, then refuse to ratify the only section with teeth in it, all the while affirming their good standing in the AC. And y’all think [i]I’m[/i] cynical??
My prediction: TEC will sign the Covenant and then turn around and add Same Sex Marriage to their so-called BCP. The ABC will call for clear and immediate discussion. TEC will walk away from the discussion with happy faces. Conservative provinces will start droping the Anglican Communion like a bad habit.
Lots of words to accompany yet another group of ACI related bishops off to beg at Lambeth’s gate.
First it was the Windsor Bishops, now the Communion Partner Bishops, with various groupings and pleadings in between, a new name but the same group, getting the same response…a non-responsive but respectful visit with Rowan’s professional listeners, with a brief appearance from Rowan who remains elusive and doesn’t want to be seen as having favored anyone. Then shuffled off and dismissed to Evening Prayer, perfectly handled with nothing changed.
These newest ACI collection of words and the bishop’s heightened aura from their trip to Mecca will calm the troops and overcome the divides in their dioceses, and life will go on peacefully until they retire, and their folks are turned over to more enlightened and faithful bishops, who magically they themselves will have elected from an ever shrinking pool of faithful leaders, many of whom will have already been compromised.
All these words, all these meetings, all these trips to Lambeth, and nothing has changed…except TEC has raced forward to accomplish its secularist agenda under the smokey cover of theological papers and booklets from ACI.
There are two important things to note. One is that orthodox groups can play this game just as much as heretical groups can. Eventually the old structures will pass away and the sooner the better. The second crisis the the AC will have to face is the imposition of an archbishop who is not Christian or some other way in which GB influences the CofE. It may not result in a clean break but it will accelerate this process of degrading the influence of the old AC structures and increasing the influence of the new.
The ACI is fully of worthy thoughts and people. But, to my mind, it is engaging in a quixotic attempt to hold a rogue institution accountable. There is little purpose in appealing to theology, reason, canon law, or even the principle of non-contradiction to an opponent who has willfully and repeatedly cast such outmoded instruments aside.
ACI’s endeavours will be a monument to integrity, like the legacy of the non-jurors. They will not, alas, be of any practical use.
Well there seem to be a lot of knowledgeable commenters above, who just glancing through their comments would lead one to wonder whether they had actually bothered to read the piece or had merely dropped in a kneejerk reaction to the fact that this is by ACI…but that is probably an unworthy thought on my part.
I have read it through once and am going to go through it again carefully before I think about commenting, but it does seem to address some of the key issues that those on all sides are going to have to think about when considering whether to sign up to the Covenant. I am particularly persuaded that this is an important and serious contribution because it is not only subscribed by a number of ACI writers, but also, and importantly from my point of view over here, by the Bishop of Durham.
#8…it is not that we wouldn’t all want ACI’s dreams to come true…and NT Wright’s as well (at least where they pertain to the Communion, about America I part company with him), but it seems to be a mind over matter battle for ACI that they are not going to win, no matter how much they appeal to the intelligensia.
Can they will into being that which matter is rejecting? I don’t think so. Remember they are just three or four skinny guys and web site for starters. They don’t even have the resources of a simple country parish under their control.
I agree with them right down the line, but they ignore reality and experience at their own disusefulness.
I am in the process of reading this, but initially one sentence sticks out:
This cuts directly against the claim of some “progressive†elements that it would be perfectly possible for The Episcopal Church, as it stands and even with the recent General Convention decisions in mind, to sign the first three sections.
Again, the ACI refuses to recognize that TEC can sign this unethically. There is nothing to prevent them from signing with no intention of following through. Or signing and worrying about the details later. Or even reading the covenant in such a way that it makes signing possible.
I’m still thinking about it, but one impression I get is that the authors seem to be anticipating that section 4 is a lost cause and are trying to put a brave face on that – well, we didn’t need it anyway, that sort of thing.
To date, the best predicter of how Williams will act has been how he has acted in the past. Given his overturning of the DES communique, subservience to TEC at New Orleans, and his recent open machinations at Jamaica, that would indicate that he does not have any intention of doing anything that would help the Communion Partners over TEC’s objections.
However, these things do not happen in a vacuum. I suspect that the global south and ACNA will take another step in due course. They seem well beyond reacting, into acting.
#11, I think you are missing the point. The ACI does excellent work. I have always been impressed with their arguments and position and support them. The difficulty I have is whether they are facing facts as they are!
Of course, this is an opinion and the writers of the ACI would argue that it matters and it is not too late. Frankly, I hope they are right. But for many in the EC still, the reality is the leadership is not trustworthy…and as said above from past experience has no problem with signing and then ignoring a Covenant. As such, the problem would continue but can the AC survive?
I doubt it.
Therein lies the problem. I was all for the Windsor Report. I do not buy the dynamic equivalence of boundary crossings, especially in light of the persecution of the reasserters that is on going. However, the ACI tries to make a distinction…but this seems to play into the hand of TEC.
Again, I think most here appreciate the work of the ACI but question if it will make any difference at all. This is the question is it too little too late…and all we have are our opinions…and mine is no more valid then theirs.
I would put it this way about ACI’s work…it is like milk that has passed its expiration use by date…was really good until circumstances caused it to curdle and sour, and then it was useless.
No one does the hard and necessary work ACI does to actually [i]prove[/i] the relevant points. This needs to be done, it does undercut and trouble the revisionists, and the considerably more thoughtful outsiders to our sandbox fight care to read their work and grasp reality. What we could do here is shut up and be grateful.
Without such honest laborers, the daily babble here adds up to just passing blog wind.