The Rev. Dr. Frank Larisey, rector of the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Orangeburg, says another resolution will ask the diocese to sign the Anglican Covenant. The theological document is an attempt to state the common beliefs that holds the church together.
“It is basically a conservative, orthodox document that carefully holds the line on traditional Christian values with some places for other judicious interpretation,” Larisey said. “The first three sections deal with how we come together, theologically, as a body.”
“The fourth section is the punitive one, the one with teeth. That spells out what will happen if the covenant is entered and then abandoned,” he said. “This is an attempt at discipline in the church that has never been there before.”
Larisey says he feels the document is worth signing, although he points out that the Episcopal Church has a long history of signing agreements and then member components going their own way. Lawrence is asking that the entire four sections of the covenant be accepted by the diocese.
“It’s not as strong as I would like, but it is a good document,” Larisey said. “It will be of help especially if the fourth section is finalized, although that won’t be until at least 2012.”
While the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a vague warmness toward anyone and everyone Anglican who wishes to participate in the Anglican Covenant, two things should be borne in mind:
1) There is actually no Covenant on the table at the moment. The ACC does not meet for another two years, and there will still need to be a process of some sort before the final form of the Covenant is given to [i]anyone[/i] to sign. Apparently the ACC approved the other 3 sections, but until Section 4 is released by the committee (which includes the membership of Jefferts-Schori) nothing can really be accomplished in regard to the Covenant.
2) There is no guarantee that individual dioceses will be permitted to “sign” the Covenant as such — or if they attempt to do so, that such “signatures” will be acknowledged. The best that can be done at this point is to “endorse” the Covenant (when it comes into actual existence). This is like saying, “I really like chocolate ice cream, so I endorse it to everyone.”
Therefore, the plans of the Diocese of SC to “sign on” seem moot. This is a lot of effort for — at best — an ephemeral return.
I’m puzzled by the quotation attirbuted here to Fr. John Scott, from Church of the Epiphany, Eutawville. Perhaps he was misquoted by the paper’s reporter. Supposedly he said, “The national church would have to change the canons for any disciplinary action to be taken against the diocese. 2012 is the next national convention, AND WE ARE EXPECTING THE TIDE TO TURN BEFORE THEN.”
Huh?? That doesn’t sound like what Kendall and +Mark Lawrence have said. They don’t seem to be entertaining the fond illusion that the tide will turn in TEC, whether before 2012 or ever. If Fr. Scott does think the Titanic that’s TEC will stabilize and avoid sinking after all, I think he’s simply engaging in wishful thinking but has deluded himself.
However, maybe what he meant was that the tide would turn within the AC as a whole, rather than within TEC. Now that’s certainly more plausible, but my guess is that it’s still wildly optimistic to imagine it could happen before 2012.
Acutally, I think the tide has already turned within Anglicanism (please note: Anglicanism is not to be equated with the old colonialist structures of the AC). And personally, I’d say the great sign of that crucial turning of the tide was at GAFCON in the summer of 2008.
But I also think it’s naive for Fr. Scott to suppose that “The national church would have to change the canons to take any disciplinary action against the diocese.” Oh yeah? Sure. Since when has that stopped the PB and her antinomian ilk before? She could care less about the canons, when they stand in her way. As the infamous canon-defying “depositions” of various conservative bishops have repeatedly proven all too clearly.
David Handy+
LumenChristie (#1),
I tend to agree with you, but I don’t think the resolutions being proposed are pointless and an exercise in futility. Pragmatically, you have to crawl before you walk, before you run.
However, I think that IF it’s fair to describe the proposed plan for the Diocese of SC to disengage in protest from the councils of TEC as a policy of assuming the role of [i]”the loyal opposition,”[/i] that is a policy that’s doomed for failure within TEC. The Episcopal Church just isn’t like the U.S. Senate or the House of Lords in the UK, where such a concept makes sense. Alas, the cabal that currently rules TEC has no respect whatsoever for any oppostion, loyal or otherwise. They are treated as enemies to be crushed, not as worthy, honorable opponents.
But again, within the AC, it may be a different story. There it’s possible to imagine a role for those in “loyal opposition” to the liberal elite that presently dominates the outmoded, colonialist international structures of the AC.
David Handy+
It is germane to this issue that the province of Ireland has endorsed the unaltered Ridley draft of the covenant. If SC and the CP dioceses also endorse it that cannot be a bad thing. Two years is enough time to generate a groundswell of support for Ridley. On the other hand, even a groundswell may be insufficient.