4. At the same time we believe that the proposed Anglican Covenant sets the necessary parameters in safeguarding the catholic and apostolic faith and order of the Communion. It gives Anglican churches worldwide a clear and principled way forward in pursuing God’s divine purposes together in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. We urge churches in the Communion to actively work together towards a speedy adoption of the Covenant.
5. In God’s gracious purposes the Anglican Communion has moved beyond the historical beginnings and expressions of English Christianity into a worldwide Communion, of which the Church of England is a constitutive part. In view of the global nature of the Communion, matters of faith and order would inevitably have serious ramifications for the continuing well-being and coherence of the Communion as a whole, and not only for Provinces of the British Isles and The Episcopal Church in the USA. We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.
I’m genuinely sorry to say that the glacial methodology of the Anglican Communion’s approach to bringing about necessary change has been found wanting by the press of immediate events.
Or, to quote our beloved Curmudgeon, “Benedict and his canon lawyers have moved ahead of the curve with their proposal, while the Anglican Communion, ECUSA and the remnant CoE will all be behind it.”
I am glad to see the “Catholic” Burmese Primate associated with this statement. While there may be a warning to Canterbury not to neglect non-Western Anglicanism the absence of reference to the GAFCON initiative and a commitment to the Covenant process is grounds for hope.
This seems like a rather ineffectual exhortation. The Global South itself is divided on WO and so is silent on that issue. That issue meanwhile is a major factor at work in those who are considering taking Rome up on it’s offer!
I wish someone would explain why anyone believes that the Covenant will survive KJS’s veto on the JSC. Remember that the future of Covenant is in the hands of those who declared TEC in compliance with Windsor, declared the meeting in New Orleans as adequate to comply with the Dar communique, removed the Ugandan delegate to ACC, seated the revisionist Ian Hunter Douglas to make sure that KJS had even more help. Even if section 4 were to survive, it was already so weak that it would take decades to actually implement any form of discipline in the Communion. What is to prevent TEC from signing and continuing to destroy the Communion?
Outstanding.
#5 — KJS is not the determiner of the fate of the Covenant. You can read what +RDW wrote about the covenant and also about ecumenical relations, after General Convention. I suspect the fate of section 4 and the covenant is tied precisely to ecumenical clarity–now needed more than ever–and the endorsement we see here from the GS.
I take my stand with the GS on this matter. Good for them in pressing for the Covenant. They are hardly benighted in their statement. More may be going on behind the scenes than we know — look at the oddity of Ireland supporting section 4.
The money quote is the second half of paragraph five: “We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.”
As I read it, this is a rather strong challenge to the ABC suggesting that the ABC has done none of what has been asked–to work with the Primates, to uphold their decisions, and to ‘exercise effective leadership’. I believe the GS is ready to move ahead of Canterbury if Section 4 of the Covenant is weakened or sidetracked in the next three months. The Global South represents two thirds of the Communion; Nigeria has grown by 3 million persons since Gene Robinson was consecrated bishop. From their vantage point, it would be fair to say that letting go of TEC (2+ million persons) is more a chip of the block than a schism down the middle.
#5: Please note that the Exhortation includes a quote from the last paragraph of the Covenant. They appear to be ready to sign on en masse and claim the Anglican mantle, if the rest of us don’t want it. Abp Mouneer has already publicly lamented what happened at Kingston; Abp Chew was on the Covenant Design Committee and is now on the Review Committee, and with the Standing Committee of SEAsia has already called for the adoption of all four parts of the Covenant by Provinces within one year.
In short, this Exhortation, spoken in a surprising context, is exactly what I have been expecting from the Global South ever since Kingston. It is very significant, and well worth reading a second or third time.
One has to say that the Archbishop and his advisors have brought this on themselves. The failure of leadership that has led first GAFCON and then the Pope to step in to offer protection to faithful Anglicans has been just lamentable as has the support he has given and co-operation with the terrorist regime run by the Presiding Bishop. The Christian care, concern and courage shown by the Pope and GAFCON leaders have been in marked contrast with the appearance of cold indifference to the persecution shown by the Archbishop.
We have watched our traditional friends in the Global South disengage from the Communion Instruments, and us, as one after another has been undermined by the Archbishop until he was left at the whim of the members of the JSC in Jamaica which he had empowered.
What remains of the bowdlerised Covenant is not much but it is something, but even that has had Section 4 removed with some degree of complicity by the Archbishop and placed with a committee of his choosing. We await news of what that Committee will recommend or he will do.
This last week has been the complete pits – watching the Archbishop and our church through him as leader publicly humiliated by Levada and the Pope in a press conference reminiscent of the parading of a hostage. He made the best of it and I was sorry for him, but things cannot carry on like this.
People here wonder if he will step up to the mark? Past experience suggests it is unlikely but perhaps if our bishops and the Primates lay it on the line as the GC Steering Committee have done there is some hope. Otherwise it looks as if the only hope for the Communion staying together is if the Primates take in hand the proper organisation of Communion affairs themselves.
Will he step up to the mark? I do pray so, for all our sakes, including that of the Church of England.
#7 — you are right on the mark, if I may say so. (I have some sense of what +Chew and +Anis are thinking, and they are going in the direction you state).
You write:
“Please note that the Exhortation includes a quote from the last paragraph of the Covenant. They appear to be ready to sign on en masse and claim the Anglican mantle, if the rest of us don’t want it. Abp Mouneer has already publicly lamented what happened at Kingston; Abp Chew was on the Covenant Design Committee and is now on the Review Committee, and with the Standing Committee of SEAsia has already called for the adoption of all four parts of the Covenant by Provinces within one year.”
I believe you are right. They (and from what we read of the GS in the statement herewith) believe the covenant is a good way forward. They are telling Archbishop Rowan to move forward. They intend themselves to do so. This is the right message and the right way forward.
It is always refreshing to hear from the Primates of the Global South. They speak with such clarity….no hidden meanings, deception, or misrepresentations.
#9 Professor Seitz – Do you think there is a problem in that Dr Williams fixed things so that as far as I remember the report of the Committee on Section 4 will go back to the Joint Standing Committee which is packed with members of the Anglo-Saxon small liberal provinces including the Presiding Bishop and Ian Douglas [who is about to gird himself with the accoutrements of a bishop of Connecticut, presumably episcopal stripey jersey, eye-mask, bolt cutters and bag marked ‘swag’]?
You’re all better thinkers than I am for sure, and obviously much more important in the Anglican universe, but this discussion seems to a philistine such as myself as being not much more than the rearrangement of a shrinking number of deck chairs on the starboard side of the listing Titanic.
[blockquote] We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to … act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings….[/blockquote]
The actions of Benedict allow statements like this to be made in an understated manner (for example, I think this refers to more than just section 4 of the covenant), but it seems to me that this is a particularly important warning to the Archbishop that he may yet change course. In the past, I would have assumed he would not, and even after Benedict’s move, I am not sure he will. But all the more reason that I believe that Benedict’s measure will be as important for how it helps those orthodox not taking it up as it is for those who do (which I tend to believe will be a relatively small group). One might almost think that was intended.
#14–Pageantmaster. 1. I trust +Chew and +Anis. 2. If +RDW does not see to a strong Covenant, the Communion will splinter all the way down. I believe he knows that. 3. I don’t believe the JSC is something like a ‘majority vote’ chamber. So, the outcome will be as +RDW wants, and in the light of 2, the JSC would be a good place for +RDW to make this reality known to all, and insure a strong covenant by his authority to do so. The JSC is not an Instrument. He is. And there are allies for a strong covenant at both final phases. Good news: we do not have to wait much longer. If the ecumenical concerns articulated by +RDW are to be addressed, there must be a coherent covenant and a track that speaks for that in ongoing dialogues.
#14 Thanks Professor Seitz – let’s pray so.
[blockquote] who is about to gird himself with the accoutrements of a bishop of Connecticut, presumably episcopal stripey jersey, eye-mask, bolt cutters and bag marked ‘swag’ [/blockquote] One free pass to the Laffin’ Place for PageantMaster.
Dr. Seitz-
I certainly agree that +Chew and +Anis are to be listened to. Had the ABC listened to them at any point in the last 6 years, we would not be where we are. We will pray that there is indeed a strong Covenant that emerges from the JSC. However, the evidence available to date is that this will have to happen over ++RW’s opposition, not with his backing.
Dr Seitz, thank you for your comments above. I noticed this morning that the AP had picked up the story about the Global South’s Exhortation. The story does not get the details correct, but seems to rightly sense that the GS statement is important.
Will ++Rowan “act decisively”? He has shown no proclivity to do so in the past.