Okay, I’ll bite: let’s say we endorse it in various dioceses in the US. And let’s assume TEC never does.
Someone please tell me, what has been accomplished for the Kingdom? I could go on, but I’ll see what flows from this.
I’m taking bets that the ABC will NOT re-iterate his “the Diocese is tied to Canterbury” line again. Not now that some apparent takers have appeared and would place him in a decision making role with actual decisons and ramifications about relatedness that differ from those of the canon ad-libber PB of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC/gay”church”.
dw-
C’mon, that is a sucker bet. Had the ABC had any intention of backing dioceses, this statement would have been issued by Lambeth Palace, would have included a statement from the ABC on dioceses being able to sign the Covenant, and would have included 8 signers, #8 being +Rowan himself.
let’s say we endorse it in various dioceses in the US. And let’s assume TEC never does. Someone please tell me, what has been accomplished for the Kingdom?
Well, I am a reappraiser, but I think that there is a bi-partisan answer to this one. We are all called to expose the darkness to the light of Truth. So if you agree with the covenant, then I would assume that signing it is akin to standing up for your faith. And that accomplishes a great deal for the Kingdom.
Now the more courageous bishops have all left…putting TEC behind them and are growing new churches in new dioceses…while these Communion Partner Bishops have been left making a Faustian bargain, exchanging peace in their time at the cost of truth never being taught the children of Episcopalians for generations to come.
I think that this is unfair. There is more than one legitimate approach. This is one of our problems with many reasserters-that they are always absolutely certain that they are right and are the only ones doing God’s work. I dare say that in these 7 Dioceses the truth is being taught to children. It is simply unfair to claim that they are not being faithful.
“The Communion Partners have said that individual dioceses could sign onto a covenant whether or not the General Convention agreed to do so.”
There was a deanery meeting this evening in the Diocese of Albany at which Bp Love read the statement that the seven bishops wrote in response to their meeting with the ABC.
The bishop was then asked what Achbp Rowan’s response was to the idea that individual dioceses could sign on to the Covenant regardless of TEC’s response. He answered that, “The Archbishop was very guarded in his response” meaning, apparently that NO assurances were given. Bp Love also said that “there are 4 instruments of unity, and they would all have their part in making any decision regarding what the dioceses may be able to do in regard to the Covenant.” He also indicated that dioceses might have to be content with merely “endorsing” the Covenant rather than signing on to it.
So it is pretty clear from the information he gave that there is no actual evidence suggesting that any diocese will in fact be allowed to join the Covenant aside from the GenCon decision concerning TEC’s membership or lack of it. Rather, it seems to be that the ABC is not planning to do anything to allow this to happen, and the ACC will be able to block diocesan membership if it so chooses — and who imagines that it will not so choose.
TEC holds all the cards in regard to the Anglican Communion as well as holding Section 4 hostage. If you stay onboard the good ship TEC, you sink with it.
The signing of the covenant may indeed be edifying to individual provinces and dioceses as a means of expressing solidarity with one another in the Anglican communion, but it will not resolve the theological/linguistic crisis which we find ourselves in the midst of. I include linguistic because at the core the crisis resolves around a conflicting approach to the Word of God, and, indeed, to language itself.
In short, if the Anglican Communion cannot agree on the plain meaning of scripture, and in fact a principle of “interpretation’ can be applied which radically alters the meaning of Biblical texts, how can anyone expect that the language of a covenant will somehow be agreed upon in turn. Rather, each body who wishes to assert that they want to remain Anglican will simply sign on and then designate the words to mean whatever they want.
To resolve the crisis, a standard must be set and upheld. The covenant could be helpful in this process, but only if there is also the establishment of a central adjudicating authority who are charged with enforcing the boundaries. This could be accomplished easily with the enactment of a Covenantial Council, but, of course, this suggestion will be resisted to the bitter end by those who wish to maintain license to interpret as they see fit.
The Anglican Communion continues to meander year after year, delaying to take the action necessary to effect a revitalized expression of Christian faith and practice. Eventually, every province, diocese, parish, and person must come to the same point of decision that many within the communion have already faced – to embrace the new religious movement of TEC, or to proclaim afresh the faith once delivered to the saints unchanged and unaltered forever. We cannot have it both ways.
I predict that the Presiding Bishop, the House of Bishops and ultimately the General Convention will all declare that dioceses are NOT free to sign any covenant that is not agreed to by the General Convention. Such signals have already been given, but I anticipate that changes will be introduced to the Canons that forbid individual dioceses, parishes, or bishops from adopting any covenant, or parts of any covenant, that the General Convention has not already agreed to. If I’m right, what will these bishops do next? Another statement? Another visit to Lambeth Palace? When will their “yes” be a yes and their “no” a no? This is all just ACI playing games, but ACI doesn’t really carry any weight in the councils of the TEC or anywhere else. The so-called “Communion Partners” are paper tigers. TEC isn’t fooled by them, nor is Lambeth Palace. They will be tolerated as long as they don’t really rock the boat or brake the rules, and then they will gradually be replaced by good reappraising bishops at the earliest possible moment. There is no strategy here and there is no endgame — just smoke and mirrors.
#5Brian. I don’t need a covenant that may take umpty years to appear to stand up for my faith. I do it every morning when I say the Apostle’s Creed and every Sunday when I lead our congregation in the Nicene Creed. This exposes a huge error in all this mess, that some how our faith and faithfulness issues from the great structures of the church. It doesn’t. It starts with our individual faith in Jesus Christ.
But thank you for your post, it confirms my belief that the covenant process is a waste of time and effort and acomplishes nothing for the Kingdom that is not accomplished everyday by faithful Christians around the world.
This is very good news. TEC does not want a direct confrontation with the ABC and will probable encourage folk not to sign it but stop short of forbidding them to.
I am hopeful that the offer of alternative oversight by these Bishops will come to something good.
Okay, I’ll bite: let’s say we endorse it in various dioceses in the US. And let’s assume TEC never does.
Someone please tell me, what has been accomplished for the Kingdom? I could go on, but I’ll see what flows from this.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
I’m taking bets that the ABC will NOT re-iterate his “the Diocese is tied to Canterbury” line again. Not now that some apparent takers have appeared and would place him in a decision making role with actual decisons and ramifications about relatedness that differ from those of the canon ad-libber PB of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC/gay”church”.
Dollars to donuts.
dw-
C’mon, that is a sucker bet. Had the ABC had any intention of backing dioceses, this statement would have been issued by Lambeth Palace, would have included a statement from the ABC on dioceses being able to sign the Covenant, and would have included 8 signers, #8 being +Rowan himself.
let’s say we endorse it in various dioceses in the US. And let’s assume TEC never does. Someone please tell me, what has been accomplished for the Kingdom?
Well, I am a reappraiser, but I think that there is a bi-partisan answer to this one. We are all called to expose the darkness to the light of Truth. So if you agree with the covenant, then I would assume that signing it is akin to standing up for your faith. And that accomplishes a great deal for the Kingdom.
Now the more courageous bishops have all left…putting TEC behind them and are growing new churches in new dioceses…while these Communion Partner Bishops have been left making a Faustian bargain, exchanging peace in their time at the cost of truth never being taught the children of Episcopalians for generations to come.
I think that this is unfair. There is more than one legitimate approach. This is one of our problems with many reasserters-that they are always absolutely certain that they are right and are the only ones doing God’s work. I dare say that in these 7 Dioceses the truth is being taught to children. It is simply unfair to claim that they are not being faithful.
The article stated:
“The Communion Partners have said that individual dioceses could sign onto a covenant whether or not the General Convention agreed to do so.”
There was a deanery meeting this evening in the Diocese of Albany at which Bp Love read the statement that the seven bishops wrote in response to their meeting with the ABC.
The bishop was then asked what Achbp Rowan’s response was to the idea that individual dioceses could sign on to the Covenant regardless of TEC’s response. He answered that, “The Archbishop was very guarded in his response” meaning, apparently that NO assurances were given. Bp Love also said that “there are 4 instruments of unity, and they would all have their part in making any decision regarding what the dioceses may be able to do in regard to the Covenant.” He also indicated that dioceses might have to be content with merely “endorsing” the Covenant rather than signing on to it.
So it is pretty clear from the information he gave that there is no actual evidence suggesting that any diocese will in fact be allowed to join the Covenant aside from the GenCon decision concerning TEC’s membership or lack of it. Rather, it seems to be that the ABC is not planning to do anything to allow this to happen, and the ACC will be able to block diocesan membership if it so chooses — and who imagines that it will not so choose.
TEC holds all the cards in regard to the Anglican Communion as well as holding Section 4 hostage. If you stay onboard the good ship TEC, you sink with it.
ACI has released their opinion on whether a Diocese can sign:
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/
The signing of the covenant may indeed be edifying to individual provinces and dioceses as a means of expressing solidarity with one another in the Anglican communion, but it will not resolve the theological/linguistic crisis which we find ourselves in the midst of. I include linguistic because at the core the crisis resolves around a conflicting approach to the Word of God, and, indeed, to language itself.
In short, if the Anglican Communion cannot agree on the plain meaning of scripture, and in fact a principle of “interpretation’ can be applied which radically alters the meaning of Biblical texts, how can anyone expect that the language of a covenant will somehow be agreed upon in turn. Rather, each body who wishes to assert that they want to remain Anglican will simply sign on and then designate the words to mean whatever they want.
To resolve the crisis, a standard must be set and upheld. The covenant could be helpful in this process, but only if there is also the establishment of a central adjudicating authority who are charged with enforcing the boundaries. This could be accomplished easily with the enactment of a Covenantial Council, but, of course, this suggestion will be resisted to the bitter end by those who wish to maintain license to interpret as they see fit.
The Anglican Communion continues to meander year after year, delaying to take the action necessary to effect a revitalized expression of Christian faith and practice. Eventually, every province, diocese, parish, and person must come to the same point of decision that many within the communion have already faced – to embrace the new religious movement of TEC, or to proclaim afresh the faith once delivered to the saints unchanged and unaltered forever. We cannot have it both ways.
I predict that the Presiding Bishop, the House of Bishops and ultimately the General Convention will all declare that dioceses are NOT free to sign any covenant that is not agreed to by the General Convention. Such signals have already been given, but I anticipate that changes will be introduced to the Canons that forbid individual dioceses, parishes, or bishops from adopting any covenant, or parts of any covenant, that the General Convention has not already agreed to. If I’m right, what will these bishops do next? Another statement? Another visit to Lambeth Palace? When will their “yes” be a yes and their “no” a no? This is all just ACI playing games, but ACI doesn’t really carry any weight in the councils of the TEC or anywhere else. The so-called “Communion Partners” are paper tigers. TEC isn’t fooled by them, nor is Lambeth Palace. They will be tolerated as long as they don’t really rock the boat or brake the rules, and then they will gradually be replaced by good reappraising bishops at the earliest possible moment. There is no strategy here and there is no endgame — just smoke and mirrors.
#5Brian. I don’t need a covenant that may take umpty years to appear to stand up for my faith. I do it every morning when I say the Apostle’s Creed and every Sunday when I lead our congregation in the Nicene Creed. This exposes a huge error in all this mess, that some how our faith and faithfulness issues from the great structures of the church. It doesn’t. It starts with our individual faith in Jesus Christ.
But thank you for your post, it confirms my belief that the covenant process is a waste of time and effort and acomplishes nothing for the Kingdom that is not accomplished everyday by faithful Christians around the world.
This is very good news. TEC does not want a direct confrontation with the ABC and will probable encourage folk not to sign it but stop short of forbidding them to.
I am hopeful that the offer of alternative oversight by these Bishops will come to something good.